Tm he National Bureau of Standards was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The M Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a

basis for the nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and

government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, and the Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

The National Measurement Laboratory

Provides the national system of physical and chemical measurement;

coordinates the system with measurement systems of other nations and

furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical and

chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, in- dustry, and commerce; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; conducts physical and chemical research; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Basic Standards2 Radiation Research Chemical Physics

Analytical Chemistry

The National Engineering Laboratory

Provides technology and technical services to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this

,

research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement

capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops

test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The

Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics

Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 Manufacturing Engineering

Building Technology

Fire Research Chemical Engineering2

The Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

Conducts research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government

operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S. C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing

the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP

voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and

Technology

Computer Systems

Engineering

The Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Conducts research and provides measurements, data, standards, reference

materials, quantitative understanding and other technical information funda- mental to the processing, structure, properties and performance of materials; addresses the scientific basis for new advanced materials technologies; plans

research around cross-country scientific themes such as nondestructive

evaluation and phase diagram development; oversees Bureau-wide technical programs in nuclear reactor radiation research and nondestructive evaluation; and broadly disseminates generic technical information resulting from

its programs. The Institute consists of the following Divisions:

Ceramics

Fracture and Deformation 3 Polymers

Metallurgy Reactor Radiation

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

2 Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.

3 Located at Boulder, CO, with some elements at Gaithersburg, MD.
Report of the

CENTER 70th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1985

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, DC, July 14-19, 1985

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Louis E. Barbrow

Ann P. Heffernan

0F o0^ United States Department of Commerce

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued November 1985

Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 704.263 pages (Nov. 1985) CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1985

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
ABSTRACT

The 70th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures was held at the J. W. Marriott Hotel in Washington, D. C, during

the week of July 14-19, 1985. Forty-five States, the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam were represented. The theme of the meeting was "Communication - Key to Progress."

Under Chairman Delfino, the theme was emphasized throughout the year

including special efforts to coordinate the work of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures with the four regional associations, State and local

officials, Federal agencies, and industry representatives. As a result of these

special efforts, the membership was better informed on the issues and the

business of the annual meeting was conducted more effectively.

A major action was the adoption of NBS Handbook 133, "Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged Goods." Other important actions were taken regarding

method of sale, device control, the National Type Evaluation Program, the National Training Program, net weight compliance, and motor fuels. Details are provided in committee summaries on the following pages. Special meetings included those of the Task Force on Commodity

Requirements, the Task Force on Motor Fuels, the Task Force on Information Systems, Metrologists' Workshops, the Associate Membership

Committee, the Scale Manufacturers Association, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, the State regional weights and measures

associations, and OIML Pilot Secretariat 20 (Prepackaged Products).

Reports by the several standing and annual committees of the Conference

comprise the major portion of the publication, along with the addresses

delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from government and

industry.

Key words: legal metrology; specifications and tolerances; training; type

evaluation; uniform laws and regulations; and weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766. Note: Opinions expressed in non-NBS papers are those of the authors and

not necessarily those of the National Bureau of Standards. Non-NBS

speakers are solely responsible for the content and quality of their material.

2
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 2 Officers, Officials, and Committees of the Conference 5 State Representatives 8 Scheduled Events 10 Organization Chart 12 GENERAL SESSION

Agenda 14 Certificates of Appreciation 28 Honor Awards 29 STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Executive Committee

Final Report 30 Appendix A - Operating Budget 1985-86 56 Appendix B - Progress Report of the Task Force

on Commodity Requirements 59 Appendix C - Certificate of Conformance 71 Committee on Laws and Regulations

Final Report 73 Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Final Report 103

Appendix A - Amendments to Handbook on Type

Evaluation 131 Appendix B - Revised Code for Belt-Conveyor

Scale Systems 144

Appendix C - Electronic Cash Registers 156

Appendix D - Examination Checklist - Taximeters 165

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

Final Report 175

Appendix A - Professionalism in Weights

and Measures 180 Appendix B - National Conference on Weights and Measures Uniform Administrative

Procedures for Certification of Weights and Measures Officials 184

Attachment 1 - Sample Letter of Agreement 187

3
Committee on Liaison

Final Report 183

Appendix A - Letter Sent to States Regarding

Motor Fuels Task Force 214

Appendix B - Survey of Laws, Regulations,

and Administration 215

Appendix C - States Responding to Questionnaire 217

Appendix D - Proposed Uniform Motor Fuel

Inspection Law 218

Appendix E - Proposed Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel 221

Appendix F - Presentations on Federal Role in Net Weight Compliance 222

ANNUAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

Nominating Committee Report 231 Resolutions Committee Report 232

Auditing Committee Report 234

Treasurer's Report 235

MISCELLANEOUS

Appointments by Chairman 237

Report of State Laboratory Metrology Workshops 239

Registration List 240

4
OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND COMMITTEES OF THE CONFERENCE

OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE

(July 22, 1984 - July 18, 1985)

Chairman:*

Chairman-Elect:*

Immediate Past Chairman:*

Vice-Chairmen:

Executive Committee:

Treasurer:*

Chaplain:

President:*

Executive Secretary*

(Elected)

Ezio Delfino, California

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas

James Akey, Kansas

Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Steven Malone, Nebraska

Edison Stephens, Utah

Lyman Holloway, Idaho

Norman Ross, Omaha, NE

John Bartfai, New York

Robert Walker, Indiana

Frank Nagele, Michigan

Charles Forester, Texas

Charles Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY

Francis Daniels, Wayne Co., IN

(Ex-officio) Ernest Ambler, NBS

Albert Tholen, NBS

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Sergeants-at-Arms:

Parliamentarian:

Assistant Treasurer:

Tom Scott, North Carolina

William Sullivan, Seattle, WA

Sydney Andrews, Florida

James Akey, Kansas

*Ex-officio members of the Executive Committee

5
STANDING COMMITTEES

(Appointed)

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Thomas Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA, Chairman

Bruce Niebergall, North Dakota

Philip Stagg, Louisiana Stan Darsey, Florida

Charles Greene, New Mexico

Technical Advisor: Joan Koenig, OWM/NBS

Laws and Regulations

Edward Skluzacek, Minnesota, Chairman

Don Stagg, Alabama

Trafford Brink, Vermont

Leo Letey, Colorado

Allan Nelson, Connecticut

Technical Advisor: Carroll Brickenkamp, OWM/NBS

Liaison N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. Peggy Adams, Bucks County, PA

John McCutcheon, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

Technical Advisor: Steve Hasko, OWM/NBS

Specifications and Tolerances

Darrell Guensler, California, Chairman

Fred Gerk, New Mexico

Robert Probst, Wisconsin

Kenneth Butcher, Maryland

Ross Andersen, New York

Technical Advisor: Otto Warnlof, OWM/NBS

6
ANNUAL COMMITTEES

(Appointed)

Nominating Committee

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas, Chairman

Sydney Andrews, Florida

Charles Greene, New Mexico

Edward Heffron, Michigan

James Lyles, Virginia

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Richard Thompson, Maryland

Auditing Committee*

Robert Williams, Tennessee, Chairman

John Berquist, City of Minneapolis, MN

Ed Romano, Glenn County, CA

Credentials Committee*

John Chohamin, Middlesex County, NJ Chairman

Arthur Hershbein, Dade County, FL

Gilbert Allen, Washington

Resolutions Committee*

Charles Tandy, Jr., Alaska, Chairman

Sharon Abercrombie, Georgia

William Eldridge, Mississippi

Donald Lynch, Kansas City, KS

Earl Maxwell, District of Columbia

Catherine Pittman, Tennessee

Fred Thomas, Pennsylvania

Technical Advisor: Richard Smith, OWM/NBS

Associate Membership Committee

Art Kroll, Gilbarco Inc., Chairman

Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing, Inc., Vice President

Kenneth Appel, Colgate-Palmolive Co., Treasurer Richard Davis, James River-Dixie/Northern, Inc. Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. Walter Kupper, Mettler Instrument Corp.

Anthony Ladd, A. J. Ladd Weighing & Packaging

Andrew Moore, Grocery Manufacturers of America

Robert Nelson, General Mills Neal Peterson, General Mills

7
PAST CONFERENCE CHAIRMEN

(Active)

Sydney Andrews, Florida (1975)

Richard Thompson, Maryland (1976)

James Lyles, Virginia (1978)

Kendrick Simila, Oregon (1979)

Edward Heffron, Michigan (1982)

Charles Greene, New Mexico (1983)

Sam Hindsman, Arkansas (1984)

R. E. Meek, Indiana (1961)

J. F. True, Kansas (1966) C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana (1968)

Sam H. Christie, New Jersey (1969) M. Jennings, Tennessee (1971) Everett Black, Ventura County, CA (1972)

George Johnson, Kentucky (1973)

John Lewis, Washington (1974) Earl Prideaux, Colorado (1977)

Edward Stadolnik, Massachusetts (1981)

STATE REPRESENTATIVES

The following is a list of designated State representatives who were present and voting on the reports presented by the Conference standing and

annual committees.

(Retired)

State Representative Alternate

Alabama

Alaska

Don Stagg

Joseph Swanson

Patricia Fullinwider

Sam Hindsman

Ezio Delfino

John Rabb

Charles Tandy,Jr.

D. L. Sorensen

J. Mike Hile D. Guensler

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Leo Letey

Allan Nelson

Eugene Keeley

Earl Maxwell

Stan Darsey

John Burke

S. Andrews

None

W. Slamon

None

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois Indiana

Lyman Holloway

Sidney Colbrook

Robert Walker

S. Abercrombie

George Mattimoe

Martin Coile

None

Dale Hurd

Steve McGuire

None

8
State Representatives, continued

State Representative Alternate

Iowa James O'Connor None

Kansas John O'Neill Donald Lynch

Kentucky None None

Louisiana Philip Stagg James Mahomes

Maine Clayton Davis Robert Clark

Maryland Richard Thompson Lacy DeGrange

Massachusetts Charles Carroll None

Michigan Edward Heffron Frank Nagele

Minnesota Edward Skluzacek G. MacDonald

Mississippi William Eldridge None

Missouri Leslie Greiner R. Wittenberger

Montana None None

Nebraska Steve Malone M. Deisley

Nevada None None

New Hampshire Michael Greiner None

New Jersey Thomas Kelly J. Silvestro New Mexico Fred Gerk C. Greene

New York John Bartfai R. Andersen

North Carolina N. David Smith Thomas Scott North Dakota Bruce Niebergal None

Ohio Bruce Litzenberg James Truex Oklahoma 0. Ray Elliott George Parker

Oregon Kendrick Simila G. Shefcheck

Pennsylvania Fred Thomas Ronald Crust

Puerto Rico Carlos Feliciano Jose Ramirez

Rhode Island None None

South Carolina Charles Smith Carol Fulmer

South Dakota James Melgaard None

Tennessee Robert Williams None

Texas Charles Forester Herb Eskew

Utah Edison Stephens Harvey Crook

Vermont Trafford Brink R. Cioffi

Virgin Islands Louis Penn Howard Dyer

Virginia James Lyles G. Diggs, HI Washington William Sullivan Gilbert Allen West Virginia None None

Wisconsin Robert Probst None

Wyoming Victor Gerber None

9
NCWM SCHEDULED EVENTS

70th ANNUAL MEETING

8 a.m.-

9 a.m.

10 a.m.-

11 a.mNoon1 p.m.

2 p.m.-

3 p.m4 p.m.

5 p.m.

6 p.m.

7 p.m.-

8 p.m.-

9 p.m

SUNDAY MONDAY

STANDING COMMITTEES AGENDA REVIEWS

31LU S XO

h- 1- IIQOLU O

3«Z OS

coo <

521

IE<5

£°go

< LU oo

ad

to ^

NASDA

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

DIVISION

TUESDAY

ORIENTATION SESSION FOR MEMBERS

SPECIFICATION AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

SESSION

INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON

PACKAGING AND

LABELING

LUNCH (OPEN)

LAWS AND

REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

SESSION

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

SESSION

METROLOGY WORKSHOP

LIAISON COMMITTEE

SESSION

-

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SESSION

LUNCH (OPEN)

GENERAL SESSION - CEREMONIAL

OPENING CEREMONY

ADDRESSES HONOR AWARDS

PRESENTATION

OPEN

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

TASK

FORCI ON

INFORMA

SYSTEN

OPEN

CHAIRMAN'S

RECEPTION OPEN

10
WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

8 a.m.

TASK FORCE ON

MMODITY REQUIREMENTS

(MOISTURE LOSS)

REGIONAL

ASSOCIATION SESSIONS

LUNCH (OPEN)

VOTING SESSION* VOTING PROCEDURE

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES COMMITTEE

VOTING SESSION' (CONTINUED)

5» NOMINATING COMMITTEE 6«LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

7-LIAISON COMMITTEE

8'RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

9-AUDITING COMMITTEE

10'TREASURER'S REPORT

•CLOSING CEREMONY

LUNCH (OPEN)

TASK FORCE ON MOTOR

FUELS

BREAKFAST MEETING

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS

STANDING

COMMITTEES- PLANNING

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES —

PLANNING

— 9 a.m.

-10 a.m.

11 a.m.

Noon

ABBREVIATIONS KEY: NASDA = National Association of State Departments of Agriculture NCWM = National Conference on Weights and Measures

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

RECEPTION

OPEN

'At the two voting sessions the listed items will be voted in the order shown; time availability will determine whether the Wednesday voting session closes at, after, or before item 4.

— 1 p.m.

-2 p.m.

-3 p.m.

—4 p.m.

-5 p.m.

-6 p.m.

—7 p.m.

-8 p.m.

9 p.m.

11
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

ANNUAL COMMITTEES

TECH AOVISOR: R. SMITH, NBS

AUDITING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN

MEMBERS:

R.WILLIAMS. TN

J. BERQUIST, MN

E. ROMANO. CA

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:

J. CHOHAMIN. NJ G.ALLEN. WA

A. HERSHBEIN. FL

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: D.TANDY. AK MEMBERS: S ABERCROMBIE. GA W ELDRIDGE. MS

D. LYNCH. KS

E MAXWELL, DC

C PITTMAN, TN

F. THOMAS, PA

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: S. HINDSMAN. AR MEMBERS: S. ANDREWS, FL C GREENE, NM

E. HEFFRON, Ml

J LYLES. VA

K. SIMILA, OR

R.THOMPSON, MO

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

TYPE EVALUATION

PUBLIC MEMBERS:

R. ANDERSEN, NY

L DEGRANGE, MD

J. LACY, USDA-P&S

D. MAHONEY, FGIS

F NAGELE, Ml

H. OPPERMANN. NBS

C. SMITH, CA

J.TRUEX, OH

0. WARNLOF, NBS

WEIGHING NDUSTRY SECTOR: CHAIRMAN J. ELENGO. JR., REVERE CORP. MEMBERS: E. BRATLE, NCR

W. GOODPASTER, CARDINAL SCALE CO.

R. HURLEY, FAIRBANKS

F. KATTERHEINRICH, HOBART CORP.

H. LOCKE RY.HBM

J. MACDONALD. HOWE RICHARDSON

J. ROBINSON, AAR

T. STABLER, TOLEDO SCALE CO.

D. TONINI, SMA

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR: CHAIRMAN R HOCKMUTH, PETROLEUM

METER & PUMP CO. MEMBERS: M. BELUE, SOUTHWEST PUMP

E BRATLE. NCR

A. EVANS, VEEDER-ROOT

R. FONGER, BENNETT PUMP

W. GERDOM, TOKHEIM

M. HANKEL, LIQUID CONTROLS

W. KEY, TOKHEIM

A. KROLL, GILBARCO

L MURRAY, DRESSER

INDUSTRIES. INC.

SPECIFICATIONS & TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: D. GUENSLER, CA (1

)

MEMBERS: F. GERK, NM (2) R. PROBST, Wl (3) K. BUTCHER, WV (4) R.ANDERSEN, NY (5) TECH ADVISOR: 0. WARNLOF, NBS

TASK FORCE ON BELT CONVEYOR

SCALES CHAIRMAN: F. GERK, NM

VICE-CHAIRMAN: L. LETEY, CO

MEMBERS: J. AWBREY, SOUTHERN

CO. SERVICE

W. BOWLES. MIDWAY COAL

S.CISIEWSKI.PEABODY COAL

P. CHASE, RAMSEY

ENGINEERING

C. DANI, WESTERN

WEIGHING AND

INSPECTION BUREAU

C. DUNAWAY, CONSOL

R.GLUMACK,TECNETICS M.GRUBER, SOUTHERN WEIGHING AND

INSPECTION BUREAU

R. HURLEY. FAIRBANKS

G. KACHEL. RIEDE SYSTEMS

N. KAUTSKEY. ISA L WALKER, MERRICK

CORP.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

CHAIRMAN6 CHAIRMAN • ELECT 8 PAST- CHAIRMAN6

E. OELFINO, CA

Q. MATTIMOE, HI

3. HIN08MAN, AR

C. GARDNER, NY

VICE- CHAIRMEN J. AKEY, KS

S. COLBROOK. IL

S. MALONE. NE

E. STEVENS, UT CHAPLAIN F.DANIELS, IN PARLIAMENTARIAN: S. ANDREWS, FL ASSISTANT TREASURER: J. AKEY, NE SERGEANTS

-

AT-ARMS TO BE APPOINTED

REPRESENTATIVES TO OIML

U.S. ADVISORY

COMMITTEE: S. HINDSMAN. AR

PS 20: R.THOMPSON. MD

KEY. BOLD TYPE - MEMBERS OF

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

n- NON-VOTING MEMBERS

e- EX-OFFICIO

LAWS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E. SKLUZACEK. MN(1) MEMBERS: D. STAGG, AL (2) A. NELSON, CT (3) T. BRINK, VT (4) L LETEY, CO (5) TECH ADVISOR C. BRICKENKAMP, NBS

12
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PRESIDENT M E. AMBLER, NBS

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY r,e A. THOLEN, NBS

ELECTED MEMBERS

ONE YEAR: L. HOLLOWAY, ID

N. ROSS, NB

TWO YEAR: J. BLACKWOOO, TX

R. WALKER, IN. THREE YEAR: C. FORRESTER, TX

F. NAQELE, Ml

REGIONAL

COORDINATOR: R. SMITH. NBS CONFERENCE COORDINATOR A HEFFERNAN NBS

LIAISON COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN N D SMITH. NC (2) MEMBERS. K.SIMILA.OR(1)

C. KLOOS. HUNT WESSON

FOODS. INC (3) P ADAMS. PA (4) J.McCUTCHEON.USDA(5) TECH ADVISOR. S. HASKO. NBS

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E. DELFINO. CAe MEMBERS: C.GREENE. NM(1) C.GARDNER. NY«

T. KELLY, NJ (2) W. PERRY. CARDINAL

SCALE (1) A. THOLEN, NBSe

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN A. KROLL GILBARCO

VICE CHAIRMAN: H. LODGE. DUNBAR

TREASURER: K. APPEL COLGATEPALMOLIVE MEMBERS: R. DAVIS. JAMES RIVER

C. KLOOS. HUNT WESSON

W. KUPPER. METTLER

A. LADD. LADD SYSTEMS

A. MOORE. GMA

R. NELSON, GEN. MILLS

N PETERSON, LEGAL COUNCIL GEN. MILLS

EDUCATION. ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: T. GEILER. MA (1

)

MEMBERS: B. NlEBERGALL ND (2) P. STAGG, LA (3) S. DARSEY, FL (4) C. GREENE, NM (5) TECH ADVISOR: J. KOENIG, NBS

TASK FORCE ON

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

CHAIRMAN: J.SWANSON.AK MEMBERS: J. LYLES, VA

J. ROTHLEDER, CA TECH ADVISOR, J KOENIG, NBS

TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:N. DAVID SMITH, NC

S ANDREWS, FL

B BLOCH, CA

D KARLISH, AR

G. MATTIMOE, HI

F. NAGELE, Ml

C. WILLIAMS. GA

TECH ADVISOR: C. BRICKENKAMP, NBS

TASK FORCE ON

COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

CHAIRMAN. R.THOMPSON, MD

MEMBERS: M. BURNETTE, AMERICAN

MEAT INSTITUTE

K. BUTCHER, WV

C. CAVAGNARO, OCA

P. ENGLER. CA

E. HEFFRON. Ml

T. KLEVAY. MILLERS NATIONAL FEDERATION

K. MAY, HOLLY FARMS

J. McCUTCHEON, USDA

A. NELSON. CN

J.TAYLOR. FDA TECH ADVISOR: C. BRICKENKAMP, NBS

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK SUBCOMMITTEE

CO-CHAIRMAN: P. ADAMS, PA

P. STAGG. LA

EVALUATION ANDCERTIFICATION SUBCOMMITTEE

S. DARSEY. FL

P. STAGG. LA

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMODITY STANDARDS

;HAIRMAN: D. STAGG. AL MEMBERS: P. ADAMS, PA

R. BELLIVEAU, PROCTER-GAMBLE

C. KLOOS, HUNT WESSON

B. LITZENBERG, OH

TECH ADVISOR: C. BRICKENKAMP, NBS

13
GENERAL SESSION

AGENDA

EZIO DELFINO

Conference Chairman, Presiding

Call to Order

Presentation of Colors and National Anthem

Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

REV. FRANCIS W. DANIELS

Conference Chaplain

Weights and Measures Administrator,

Wayne County, IN Welcoming Address - "Consumer Protection'1 VIRGINIA KNAUER

Advisor to the President for Consumer Affairs

Keynote Address - "Payoff at the Grassroots" ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

Director, National Bureau of Standards

Chairman's Address - "Communication - Key to Progress"

EZIO F. DELFINO

Conference Chairman

Certificates of Appreciation

EZIO DELFINO

Conference Chairman

Honor Awards Presentation

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

14
CONSUMER PROTECTION

Virginia H. Knauer

Special Advisor to the President for Consumer Affairs

and

Director, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

Dr. Ambler, Mr. Delfino, Mr. Tholen, and ladies and gentlemen of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures.

It is a pleasure for me to welcome you to Washington for your 70th

National Conference. All 70 have been held, I understand, under the

sponsorship of the National Bureau of Standards since the first National

Conference in 1905. Eighty years. That's a long time for almost any program and the endurance of the relationship is testimonial to the need and value of your

cooperative efforts to assure fairness in our nationwide system of weights

and measures. It is a vital need.

Now I cannot claim that my office has worked with NBS for 80 years, but I do remember my first personal association with NBS's fine work

when, in 1970, as President Nixon's appointee as Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs, my office worked very closely with NBS on the

National Metric Study Conference on Consumer Affairs. Since that time, some 15 years ago, we have worked increasingly together, and in particular, with your National Conference on Weights and Measures

through membership on your Liaison Committee and other specialized

advisory groups. Through all of those years we have sought the common goal of improving

the interests of our economy and its consumers through improved weights

and measures. We share that goal of "serving consumers better," and I want to thank your Conference through both your President, Dr. Ambler,

and your Chairman, Mr. Delfino, for the many years of cooperation with

our Office. You have been, in spirit and in deed, always ready to listen and to consider our recommendations. I sincerely hope this opportunity

for cooperative effort will continue and I pledge the continued cooperation

of my office with you.

15
Over my years of service to three Presidents, I have been very supportive

of initiatives and programs of the National Conference and other

standards and enforcement organizations. This work assures the fairness and equity that not only protects consumers, but, just as important,

maintains the credibility and viability of the American marketplace. We

worked diligently, for example, to assure that some recognition of the

need and merit of such efforts was included in the final version of the recent United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection.

We must be alert, however, to assure that undertakings in the name of uniform standards or codes are justified, rational, and beneficial—whether

undertaken by voluntary groups or government regulatory agencies. A

basic philosophy of President Reagan's and a recurrent theme of his Administration, is reliance upon competitive market forces to stimulate

our economy to provide consumer choice and reflect consumer preferences

to the maximum extent consonant with consumer health and safety and

prevention of consumer deception. Let me be clear: where there is demonstrable need and where standardization and uniformity will serve consumers and the market better than uncontrolled innovation we must

not be timid. But where the need has not been shown or where it appears that standardization and uniformity may only serve to decrease consumer choice, or limit product innovation, thereby stifling competition, we must show restraint. Standardization for its own sake does not

benefit consumers or our economy.

We all remember the days of relative uniformity in the financial services

and transportation industries. While the old days of uniformity may have

been satisfying to regulators and some of these industries, few could claim

that consumers benefited more than they do from the intense competition

of today. Such vigorous competition characterizes the modern food

industry, despite its being, as it should be, regulated to assure consumer

safety. As a result, the American food supply is the world's most varied

and we spend less of our disposable income for food than the citizens of any other industrialized nation.

I know that you have a full busy agenda for this meeting with a number

of administrative as well as some very significant regulatory issues that demand your consideration. One item where our interests seem to converge is the proposal under consideration to add the relatively new

category of spreads to the uniform code specifying package sizes for butter and margarine. While this may not be the most pressing issue before this group, it represents a challenge to our commitment to reliance on competitive market forces, especially in the food industry, in a highly

symbolic way.

As many of you who have followed the activities of my office through

the years know, I have focused considerable attention and resources on

issues similar to this one, issues where consumer choice could resolve the

problem, or if not, regulatory action could follow when it becomes

manifestly necessary. In this instance, I and others in the Administration

are concerned that the vitality and viability of this and other new

products in the very competitive and market-sensitive food retailing system

16
not be stifled by anticipatory action that may preclude us from ever knowing whether it was warranted or not, and may chill the enthusiasm

of other innovators. Consumers may reject this product or its packaging,

or it may lead the way for marketing innovations in other products. A

year or two of experience may show that action is unneeded, or at least determine the type of action needed.

Now, since we seek in many ways the serving of consumers, I would like to take my clue from your theme "Communication - Key to Progress" and

share with you some of the work and present concerns of my office.

I have a two-fold communications responsibility—to report to the

President and the Executive Branch the priority concerns of consumers, and to inform consumers what actions the President and the Executive

Branch are doing to meet these concerns. In my capacity as Director of the United States Office of Consumer Affairs, I also develop my own

programs to assist consumers in major areas.

In the last decade or two, the marketplace has evolved substantially,

keeping pace with changes in demographics, increased competition

producing new products and services, and developing technology in our

shrinking world. Consumers are faced with problems and choices that

didn't exist or affected very few people not many years ago. Allow me

to cite a few examples on which my office is currently working.

One issue we deal with is deregulation, which has led to a greater

competition in transportation, banking, and the communication industries. Because of the rapid changes in financial services, my office co-sponsored

two national conferences in the past year on deregulation of financial services to stimulate dialogue between consumers and the banking

community on critical issues and problems. The response from both

sectors has been positive—moving from identification of problems to workable solutions. Through public and private partnerships, materials and

special programs are being developed to seek consumer comment and to keep consumers informed of the changes in the financial services industry

and of the impact on consumers. Another major effort has been to inform and educate consumers on the

serious issue of consumer product counterfeiting. In just four years

counterfeit goods have increased from $4 billion to $19.5 billion dollars at the retail level, according to the U.S. Customs Service. We recently

co-sponsored, with the Council of Better Business Bureaus, a conference

on the dangers of counterfeit products to our health and pocketbooks, and

to highlight the new technologies and other developments to thwart

counterfeiters. It is possible that you will come across counterfeit goods

in your work.

Elderly and handicapped consumers are another area of concern. With the National Energy and Aging Consortium, which we helped establish, we are promoting national awareness on the special dangers of hypothermia and

heat stress for the elderly. In this connection we have worked very

closely with the Food and Drug Administration and the American Society

for Testing and Materials to develop standards for low reading

17
thermometers to detect hypothermia - which causes over 25,000 deaths

each year. We also are working with commodity futures organizations to warn older consumers of the fly-by-night "boiler room operators" who

cheat older Americans of millions of dollars in phony commodities

schemes.

And, we are increasing our attention to international issues, especially

international trade. Competitive free trade provides consumers with

wider choices for products at competitively lower prices. In the United

States, Japan, and many other nations, there is now a protectionist

sentiment that, if successful, could have a major adverse impact on free trade policies and, ultimately on consumers.

Narrow-interest protectionism is a game no one wins and everyone loses.

It affects each of us by reducing competition in the marketplace and

reducing choice while increasing prices. It is imperative for consumers to understand the impact that protectionist issues would have on their lives.

In May, our interest in protectionism and related issues took me to Japan

at the invitation of the Minister of the Economic Planning Agency (EPA)

to address the Japan Consumer Day Symposium in Tokyo and a later conference of Japanese and American consumer educators in Kyoto. Their consumer concerns, not so surprisingly, are similar to ours and they are

looking to the United States for models of successful programs for consumers, especially in consumer education—which happens to be one of the top priorities of my office. All the issues I have mentioned help illustrate the urgent need for continuing consumer education at all levels through a variety of approaches and throughout one's lifetime. Consumers need an adequate knowledge base for mastering—or even coping

with—the marketplace. We, as consumers, need to understand our economic system and know how to make intelligent choices in a complex

marketplace, how to protect ourselves from fraudulent schemes and how

to participate as citizens in the national and international policy debates

that impact on our daily lives. These needs concern me greatly and it is the reason why I have established within my office a Division of Consumer Education to provide national leadership for stimulating new and

effective consumer and economic education initiatives through the active

support of both the public and private sectors. We encourage and work cooperatively with leaders in government,

educational institutions, business, voluntary groups, and with individual

citizens. And these partnerships are working, especially as the corporate

sector increasingly recognizes that consumer education is "good business." And, now, I would like to enlist you in this expanded consumer education

effort. As weights and measures officials, you daily work in the front

lines on behalf of our marketplace and its consumers. You have a unique

position and role to communicate to consumers an understanding of how—in the area of weights and measures—consumers and the businesses

serving them, can make intelligent choices and trade offs in the

18
marketplace, can spot honesty and dishonesty, and can be fully

participating citizens in local, national, and international policy debates

affecting their lives.

I know and applaud your effort to sponsor a National Weights and Measures Week which my friend and colleague, Peggy Adams, Director of the Bucks County Pennsylvania Consumer Bureau, is spearheading for you. These special "week" promotions can be very effective educational tools, and, we know this is true from our own annual promotion of National

Consumers Week proclaimed annually since 1982 by President Reagan. I hope you all get behind these opportunities to get your message to the

public, to legislators, and to consumers.

I know too of the dedicated work going on in your standing committees

such as the very complete set of training modules being developed by

your Education Committee. These will ultimately be very helpful in providing assurances of fairness in an increasingly technical weights and measures environment. Happily, I note, one of these modules will deal with consumer complaint handling—a subject of great interest to me and

my office. We have learned, both through research we sponsored and the hundreds of contacts we have had with forward-thinking businesses who

have installed effective complaint handling systems, these systems pay

off. They pay off by identifying and correcting causes of consumer

complaints at the source, they pay off in opportunities to inform and

educate consumers as to effective procedures to follow in making the marketplace respond to their needs, and they pay off in providing vital feedback to business as to consumer perceptions, problems, and needs. Because of our belief in the effectiveness of complaint handling systems,

my office sponsored a presentation, as some of you may remember, by

one of the nation's leading experts on the subject at the annual meeting

of the Southern Weights and Measures Association in Nashville during

October 1983. This was followed, at your invitation, by a similar presentation, by the same expert, at your annual conference last year in Boston. You may detect, I am convinced, the value of installing and constantly

improving such systems. I admit it—and hope you share that conviction

with me. You may know that we are conducting an update of our study

of 10 years ago, Consumer Complaint Handling in America. The update

will give us a picture of how the changes in technology and in our

evolving marketplace have influenced complaint handling by Federal,

State, and local government, business and voluntary groups. I know it will be of interest to you and may have bearing on your own operations.

The final report should be available later this year and we will certainly share it with you.

Well, I don't want to overstay my welcome. There are fine and

important presentations yet to come which you must hear.

I am delighted to have had this opportunity to welcome you, to congratulate and encourage you in the very important work that you do,

and to encourage your support of educational efforts to help consumers

19
help themselves. I understand your chairman-elect, Mr. Mattimoe, has

indicated he plans to emphasize "outreach" in his coming term. I heartily

endorse that good idea and urge you to reach out to consumers, don't hide

your light under a bushel, let them know you are there to serve and that you can serve them.

All of us will be the better for it. Well informed consumers are better consumers, better customers, and better citizens. My best wishes for your continued efforts and for the success of your Conference.

It has been a pleasure to be with you.

20
PAYOFF AT THE GRASSROOTS

Dr. Ernest Ambler

Director, National Bureau of Standards

I am very pleased to be with you at another, namely the 70th, Annual

Meeting of this Conference. As your President, I looked forward to meeting

with you and reviewing the significant achievements of the past year. This

is the fourth Annual Meeting in succession that I have been able to attend. We have been able to share in the satisfaction of reviewing solid results of our joint investment. Each year I also recommend specific actions of the membership at the meeting, especially recommendations of your committees

that I endorse.

I want to talk less about recommended actions this week, and more about

actions that you need to take when you return to your States and localities.

Payoff from your efforts to date can occur only if grassroots weights and measures officials understand what we have accomplished and apply those

accomplishments in their everyday activities. Payoff at the Grassroots requires: that every State laboratory be certified and that it provide a full range

of services to its weights and measures program and to its local

industry; that every State adopt and apply the latest changes in the uniform

regulations, Handbook 44, and Handbook 133; and, that every State inspector be fully qualified based on the standards

adopted by this Conference.

The accomplishments we have made together in the past have been

impressive. You should be proud of your accomplishments. You should be

proud of your leadership who were inspired to tackle tough issues, many of which had been around for decades.

In making my comments, I want to reflect on the history of your endeavors.

21
The first subject is checking packaged goods.

The year is 1914. The headline in the newspaper reads, "Henry Ford

institutes the assembly line method of making cars."

In the same year, 1914, at the 9th Annual Meeting of this Conference, one

of your predecessors said, "We have to study the question of shrinkages, the

question of variations due to moisture changes during shipment, to subsequent storage, to sifting, and what not". Today, 1985, you have a new Task Force on Commodity Requirements with

members from State government, industry and Federal agencies working on

this problem. I believe that they are succeeding in resolving this problem

which has been on the record at least for 70 years. The 2nd edition of NBS Handbook 133 was published in October 1984. It incorporated changes and modifications to the original Handbook requested by

the industry through the Industry Committee of Package and Labeling and by

State officials.

I note that your Subcommittee on Commodity Standards, the Task Force on Commodity Requirements, and the Executive Committee have gone on record

for adoption. I also understand that all four Regional Associations have

voted for adoption. It is now the appropriate time for this Conference to assume a formal position on package checking by adoption of Handbook 133. The NBS position is that the methods contained in Handbook 133 are

statistically correct and should be recognized as national standards. The second subject I want to review is the status of the National Type

Evaluation Program.

The year is 1927. The headlines are large and announce, "Lindberg flies the Atlantic solo in the Spirit of St. Louis." That same year, 1927, at the 20th Annual Meeting of this Conference, a

delegate from Pennsylvania declared, "In view of the fact that the subject

of type approval as regards commercial weighing and measuring devices is becoming an increasingly important one in this country, it seems

appropriate that the matter should be discussed before this body."

More than fifty years later, the question of type approval was still around.

But, together, we tackled it. We undertook the design and development of the National Type Evaluation Program because of the great potential to bring economies and advances to both regulatory programs and device

manufacturing, sales, and service companies. We recognized the need for a

single source of testing procedures, and the need for establishing a nationwide system of type evaluation in which a manufacturer could gain

approval to market a new device in any State based on a single evaluation.

22
We have progressed through the planning and development stages. The

NCWM and the NBS have taken most of the actions required under the

development plan. Check lists and test procedures have been put together

and adopted. The NTEP administrative policy and procedures have been

published, including the printing and use of the new Certificate of Conformance. A uniform regulation for NTEP has been drawn up, adopted by

the Conference, and published in NBS Handbook 130. A logo has been

developed and guidelines written for its use. The NTEP began operating

officially last October. So far, over 60 devices have received Certificates

of Conformance under the program.

Yes, progress has been impressive. However, there remains one serious concern. A concern about action required before the industry and the

States can profit from the investment made to develop the NTEP.

California, Ohio, and North Carolina have adopted the uniform regulation. A

few States are in the process of its adoption. I am concerned about the lack

of action by several States that require type approval at the State level. Regulations of a State might already provide the Director of Weights and Measures with the authority to accept the NTEP Certificate of Conformance

without adopting the uniform regulation. I urge the Directors in such

States, that is those that do not need to adopt the uniform regulation, to

issue an official notice of that fact and of their intent to accept the NTEP

Certificate of Conformance in lieu of an evaluation in that State. The

potential savings of tax dollars and industry budgets for evaluation of devices will not be realized until these steps are taken at the State level.

In those States that will require legislative action to participate in NTEP, I urge you to take that action soon.

If you have difficulties and I can help in any way, please call on me. I am

willing to contact State officials at any level to persuade them that this adoption of the uniform regulation is definitely in the national interest and,

I believe, also in the interest of each individual State. My third subject is the National Training Program

The year is 1941. The radios brought the startling news, "Japan bombs

Pearl Harbor and other Pacific territories." Six months earlier, in June of 1941, the Chairman of the Conference

Committee on Weights and Measures Education reported, "we suggested a course of study for the individual inspector, and a general school of

instruction for all weights and measures officials in the jurisdiction."

Many efforts have been made over the years to encourage training of

officials. We concluded four years ago that no permanent progress could be

made unless we developed formal written manuals to serve as the textbooks

for training. Your leadership asked for a grant from the National Bureau of Standards to begin work on writing these "textbooks." These training

publications will contain the basis for training inspectors in the latest technology and are designed to be updated as the technology or legal

requirements change.

23
This year, several training modules will be published. Complementing the

manuals is a State certification plan. Completion of training in any given

subject and the successful passing of a final examination will be the basis for certification of the inspector in that particular function.

I urge the States to plan on the use of the Conference developed manuals

as the required material for certification of your inspectors. I further urge

the States to budget for the purchase of the manuals as they are packaged

by the Conference.

The Conference needs to explore means for financing the completion of the development of all of the planned modules as well as for the updating of the modules after they are published. The NBS grant was for research into the feasibility of the program by the development and testing of a number

of modules. I believe that the feasibility has been proven. Now, the NBS

support should shift to other research related activities such as the potential

for use of computers and networking in the administration of weights and measures programs as described at last year's Annual Meeting by Stan Warshaw.

The State Laboratory Program is my fourth subject.

The year is 1961. John F. Kennedy is inaugurated President of the United

States. At the 46th Annual Meeting in 1961, the Executive Secretary of the Conference reported on the progress being made on the design of new

standards and instruments to outfit the State laboratories. He stated that, "these standards and instruments will be such that, if adequate space and

properly trained personnel are provided, the State weights and measures

laboratories can become, in reality, the measurement center for the State - for business, industry, education, and technology". That program was a

success and the 50th State laboratory outfitted with these new State standards and instruments was dedicated in 1979. After several years of intensive work, this year, 1985, has been a landmark

year for the State Laboratory program. The details of the NBS -State

relationship has been documented formally for the first time. The criteria and procedures for certification of the qualification of State weights and measures laboratories has been developed, documented, and applied. NBS

Handbook 143, "State Weights and Measures Laboratories, Program Handbook"

was published in February 1985. In addition, a second part was added to the

Handbook that provides additional criteria and procedures to be used in authorizing previously certified laboratories to function as testing

laboratories in the National Type Evaluation Program.

A second document, NBS Special Publication 686, "State Weights and

Measures Laboratories, Program Description and Directory" was printed in January, 1985. This publication describes the State Laboratory Program, and

contains a description of the services provided by the State laboratories, and

the status of certification by the NBS.

The acceptance and application of the criteria and procedures of these

publications is an excellent example of the actions needed at the State level to achieve the pay-offs envisioned.

24
Pay-offs from these efforts are accruing in terms of added facilities and

staff. In several States, new laboratories are in the planning stage. All States are members of one of five regional measurement management

programs, involved in professional activities including training and round

robin experiments. Training of State metrologists has been enriched with the development of class room notes, which will appear as "Metrologists

Handbooks" during the next year. However, there are still three State laboratories that are not certified. Additionally, many other State laboratories have very limited programs. In

all of these cases, we at NBS intend to persist in encouraging and assisting the States in obtaining the facilities or skills needed to provide the services every State requires to support commerce.

In conclusion, The National Bureau of Standards and the National Conference

on Weights and Measures are responding to the needs of commerce. The

results to date include updating the key NBS Handbooks, formalization of State laboratory programs, establishment of the Type Evaluation Program and

the Training Program. The preparation and publication of this body of

standards, criteria, and procedures is impressive, but the payoff on the

investment of monies and time spent by many has only begun.

The standards exist; the policies exist; the Uniform Regulations exist; the

test criteria and procedures exist; the training materials are well along; the

resources exist.

I am very happy about the achievements we are making together. And the

individual who is largely responsible for things happening at NBS and in the

National Conference is Al Tholen. His energy and leadership over the past seven years have been truly remarkable. Last year, your Chairman, Sam

Hindsman made a presentation to Al recognizing his "outstanding service to the National Conference on Weights and Measures."

I am, therefore, most pleased today to announce that Al has been selected

to receive the 1985 Allen Astin Award. This prestigious award recognizes

not only Al's contributions, but in the larger sense, the accomplishments of

his staff and the achievements of you in the Conference also. And this broader recognition is very fitting. The award, named in honor of our

distinguished past Director Allen Astin, is for outstanding Bureau achievement in the accomplishment of measurement services. In Al's case,

it recognizes his unique contributions to the promotion of a uniform weights

and measures system.

Allen Astin had a long and deep interest in weights and measures and this Conference; he had pride in being your President. Association of the award

with the National Conference is especially appropriate. I want to congratulate Al, his staff, and the members of the National Conference on

this very special award.

Let us all apply the results of our hard work at the Annual Meeting to your programs at home. The potential for significant payoffs at the grassroots is available; let's go for it.

25
COMMUNICATION - KEY TO PROGRESS

Ezio Delfino,

Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures

Mr. President, honored guests, weights and measures officials, associate

members:

This year has been a wonderful experience for me serving as your Chairman.

But, before I get into commenting on the year, I want to report on the predicted weather conditions in San Diego today. The high will be about

70 °F; the low will be 55 to 60 °F. The relative humidity will be 20 to 30 percent. I just thought that you might like to know that and compare that prediction with the weather here.

Concerning my talk, I find that I do not work from a prepared text as well

as I do from notes. Therefore, I will be talking from notes today and

hereby give the Executive Secretary full and sweeping editorial privileges to get it into shape for the Conference proceedings.

This past year as your Chairman has been a unique experience for me. I attended the Western Meeting in Seattle, the Northeastern Meeting on Long

Island, Northwest Meeting in Minneapolis, and the Southern Meeting in Huntsville, Alabama. I also had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the International Organization of Legal Metrology in Helsinki with Al TTiolen and

his wife.

In terms of the United States, I realize again how diverse this country is. The local economies vary from heavy industry to heavy farming. Local concerns vary from one part of the country to another. Local customs and manners of speaking are different and sometimes amusing. When I was at the Northeastern meeting in Long Island, Don Stagg followed me on the

program to talk about Handbook 133. When he finished his talk, he said, "Y'all come see us now." Later in the day, he commented that the folks in the northeast "sure talk funny." For all the diversity from coast to coast and the northern to the southern

borders, we are still surprisingly uniform in the way we conduct ourselves in the marketplace. California regulates approximately 280 billion dollars of commerce annually. Our national economy, which is regulated by you folks representing the States and industry, is many times as large. To say that our uniformity is surprising is not intended to discount the fact that we do

have problems to deal with. There are currently hot issues such as ice cream bars, margarine-type spreads, and dealing with products gaining or

losing moisture.

26
But we've dealt with problems like this before. Those of us who have been

around for a few years remember the discussion on bailer's twine and polyethylene sheeting. And who of us can forget the excitement of the

discussions on wallpaper between the paper hangers and the wallpaper

manufacturers. Even when we've resolved our current issues, there will be other problems

that we will have to deal with. Let us remember that we have been successful. Can you imagine the USDA, the Food and Drug Adminstration, consumers,

industry, and weights and measures officials all working together? They are

on the net weight issue. The special task force under Dick Thompson is tackling some very interesting problems and I expect that they will be able

to resolve much of this issue. This Conference is the perfect forum for the discussion of diverse issues. It

is a model that could be copied by other groups dealing with similar

situations. One of the beauties of this Conference is its ability to maintain

a steady constructive course in terms of the participants over the years. We

are losing some real giants of weights and measures individuals who have

worked with this Conference for many many years. I understand this might

be the last Conference as active members for Syd Andrews, Stan Darsey,

Lyman Holloway, to name a few. In not too many years, the Conference

will be losing as active members individuals like Jimmy Lyles and

Sam Hindsman. But, as I look around this room I know that the Conference

will continue to be in good hands. We have new blood coming on strong

such as the Staggs (Don and Phil), Dave Smith, and Treasurer

Charlie Gardner. You young whippersnappers have a responsibility to carry on the finest tradition that has been established by your predecessors. I have no doubt that this fine tradition will continue on in the future. After reflecting on the fine tradition of this Conference, we must remember

that after all is said and done, we must go home and implement the various

actions taken here at the annual meeting. I want to reinforce the comments made by others that the real payoff of the work done by you

here will accrue only if we take the results of this Conference to every

weights and measures official in the country.

The world is changing rapidly. Society is changing on a daily basis. We

have to be disciplined to keep up with these changes. What would be the

reaction of our great-grandparents if they were to be suddenly thrust into the world today? It would be pretty tough going for them. The advantage we have is that we are dealing with it on a gradual basis, year by year.

Finally, I wish to congratulate Al Tholen upon being selected to receive the

1985 Allen V. Astin Measurement Science Award. Over the years, Al and

his staff have proved to be invaluable in contributing to the Conference's

success. Congratulations, Al.

In closing, I want to reiterate that we must continue to cope with an ever

faster changing world. We must continue to talk to each other, to communicate. We must continue to work towards uniformity. If we do

that, we will not fail. Thank You.

27
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION

The Conference Chairman presented Certificates of Appreciation to members of the Standing Committees who had completed their tenure on each committee, and two special appointees who were retiring. Darrell A. Guensler

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Edward P. Skluzacek

Committee on Laws and Regulations

Kendrick J. Simila

Committee on Liaison

Thomas F. Geiler

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs

Lyman D. Holloway

Executive Committee

Norman M. Ross

Executive Committee

Stan J. Darsey

Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs, retiring

Sydney D. Andrews

Parliamentarian, retiring.

28
HONOR AWARDS PRESENTATIONS

Dr. Ernest Ambler, President of the Conference, presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who, by attending the 70th Annual Meeting this year, reached one of the attendance categories for which recognition is made - attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years. 10 YEARS

John J. Bartfai A. R. Daniels

Francis W. Daniels

Ezio F. Delfino

Darrell A. Guensler

Stephen A. Malone

Allan M. Nelson

Claude R. Parent

William C. Sullivan

Charles H. Greene

Charles L. Vanlnwagen

State of New York

NCR Corporation

Wayne County, Indiana State of California State of California State of Nebraska

State of Connecticut

Gilbarco, Inc. City of Seattle, Washington

State of New Mexico

Shell Oil Company

15 YEARS

Thomas E. Kirby

Merrill S. Thompson

Charles J. Denny

Retired, State of Georgia

Chadwell & Kayser, Ltd. William M. Wilson's Sons, Inc. 20 YEARS

Trafford F. Brink

Eugene Keeley

Richard L. Thompson

Thomas M. Stabler

State of Vermont

State of Delaware

State of Maryland

Toledo Scale

25 YEARS

James F. Lyles

30 YEARS

State of Virginia

William A. Scheurer Retired

29
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Ezio F. Delfino, Chairman

Assistant Director, California Division of Measurement Standards

State of California

REFERENCE KEY

100 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee submitted its Report to the 70th Annual Meeting

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report

consisted of the Interim Report as offered in the Conference Announcement

and as amended by Addendum Sheets developed during the Annual Meeting.

After its component items were adopted, the Report was adopted in its entirety by hand vote of the membership.

The Report contains the recommendations of the Committee formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received during the year. The following number sequence for the Reference Key Items is used to group items into categories.

101 CONSTITUTION AND POLICY

102 MEMBERSHIP

103 ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

104 PROGRAM

105 NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT

Table A (next page) identifies all of the items contained in the report. The

Reference Key numbers and titles of voting items are identified in bold

face print. All others listed are Information Items. ORDER OF PRESENTATION

The Committee presented the voting items individually. After discussion

and voting on those items, the Informational Items were described and

then the Committee Report in its entirety was voted on.

30
Executive Committee

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Title of Item Key No. CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS

101-1 Constitution and Bylaws, General

101-2 NCWM Logo

101-3 Evaluation of New Procedure

101-4 Committee Structure 101-5 Policy and Guidelines

101-6 Scheduling of Annual and Interim Meetings

102-1 Recognition of Advisory Members

102-2 Role of Associate Members

102-3 Membership, Promotion

103-1 Elections, Appointments, Resignations

103-2 Finance, Financial Report

103-3 Budget Development

103-4 Publications and Forms

103-5 Weights and Measures Directory

103-6 Associate Member Directory

103-7 Newsletter, W&M Today

104-1 Planning for Annual Meetings

104-2 Regional Associations, Coordination with NCWM

104-3 Regional Presidents' Meeting

104-4 Training, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

104-5 Task Force on Commodity Requirements

104-6 Subcommittee on Commodity Standards

104-7 Task Force on Motor Fuels 104-8 Task Force on Information Systems

104-9 Customs

105-1 Policy and Procedures

105-2 NTEP Logo

105-3 Index of Device Evaluations

105-4 Uniform Regulation for NTEP

105-5 Laboratory Authorization

105-6 NBS Role in NTEP

105-7 Relationships of NTEP, HB 44, and W & M Law

105-8 NTEP Brochure

105-9 Load Cell Intercomparison

31
Executive Committee

Individual Voting Items Formal action (vote) of the NCWM was requested on the two following

items:

104-6 Subcommittee on Commodity Standards

This Item was adopted (State Representatives 43 Yea; 0 Nay:

Delegates 71 Yea; 0 Nay).

105-2 NTEP Logo

This Item was adopted (State Representatives 28 Yea; 0 Nay:

Delegates 75 Yea; 0 Nay).

* * * * * * DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS FOLLOW IN NUMERICAL ORDER

REFERENCE

KEY

CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS

101-1 CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS, GENERAL

The Constitution and Bylaws were adopted at the 69th Annual Meeting. They were printed as NCWM Publication #1 and distributed to the membership in December, 1984. Several items were discussed to correct or improve the

document, none of which required formal action by the membership at the Annual Meeting.

Credentials Committee.

The Credentials Committee is referenced as an Annual Committee (page 10)

and as a Standing Committee (page 12). The page 10 entry is an error and

will be deleted in future printings.

Standing Committees - Membership.

Article V, Section 2A, first paragraph (page 11) as adopted by the membership at the 69th Annual Meeting was changed to read:

»» t>e appointed from the active, the advisory, or the associate membership) on ." The words "the advisory" will be added in future printings.

Nominating Committee. The Constitution and Bylaws states (Page 4) that "The Chairman shall appoint a Nominating Committee consisting of the most recent Past Chairman

as Committee Chairman and six (6) active members". The custom in the past has been to appoint all past Chairmen to the Nominating Committee.

All members of the current Nominating Committee are past Chairmen (7).

32
Executive Committee

The possibility that more than six past chairmen may be available for ap- pointment to the Nominating Committee was discussed. The Executive

Committee voted to retain the current wording in the Constitution and Bylaws. 101-2 NCWM LOGO

A proposal to change the logo was discussed at the Interim Meeting in January, 1984. The proposal was tabled at the Annual Meeting after the Committee realized that the current logo is officially recognized by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Inventory of the logo is essentially depleted;

therefore, the Executive Secretary was authorized to proceed with the re- production of the current, DoC approved logo with some minor modifications. A related item on the Agenda of the Executive Committee for discussion was the use of a logo by participants in the National Type Evaluation Pro- gram (see Reference Key 105-2).

101-3 EVALUATION OF NEW PROCEDURE

Chairman Delfino was the first Chairman who served as Chairman-Elect

prior to assuming his duties as Chairman.

Having served as Chairman-Elect for a year, he was prepared to announce

most of his appointments at the Annual Meeting. The Chairman had formulated plans regarding issues that he wanted the Conference to address. At

the top of his agenda was the issue of net weight. He had, therefore, made

plans to establish a new Task Force of Commodity Requirements and a Subcommittee on Commodity Standards.

This new procedure resulted in the added benefits of recognizing the appointees at a general session of the Conference, and establishing the full complement of Committees and Task Forces to start their planning at the

beginning of the Conference work year. 101-4 COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

Over the years, proposals have been made to improve the capabilities of the Conference to conduct its business. Notable changes have been made in voting procedures, committee operation, and restructuring of the Executive

Committee.

These discussions continued based on recent suggestions made for eliminating some of the overlap of committee activities. Activities of the standing

committees were reviewed to determine the extent of overlap and possible

remedies. The Committee on Laws and Regulations and the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances continue to have heavy schedules and large

agendas. The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs is heavily taxed to maintain its schedule in the development of the

training program. The Committee on Liaison has had a lighter schedule recently. It was suggested that the work of the Conference could be distrib- uted more evenly to relieve those committees with heavy agendas by

transferring selected assignments from them to the Liaison Committee.

33
Executive Committee

The Committee on Liaison met with the Executive Committee to present its views on any reorganization that might impact its role, and discuss possible

additional assignments. The Conference adopted the role and function of the

Liaison Committee at the 66th Annual Meeting (NBS SP 629, Page 202).

These changes, recommended by the Committee on Liaison, broadened its role and emphasized the importance of its functions if proper assignments were made.

After this joint meeting and the review of the previous action by the Conference, the Executive Committee concluded that:

1. No changes should be made in the number and composition

of the standing committees at this time,

2. The oversight of the Task Force on Motor Fuels should be

assigned to the Committee on Liaison,

3. Selected assignments related to the planning for the observation of the 150th Anniversary of the establishment of the Office of Weights

and Measures should be made to the Committee on Liaison, and

4. The Executive Secretary should establish a procedure for review and assignment of items to the various committees.

Chairman Delfino assigned the Task Force on Motor Fuels and the NCWM

activities associated with the planning for the 150th Anniversary of the

NBS' Office of Weights and Measures to the Committee on Liaison. The Executive Secretary has been requested to prepare a review of each

future proposed establishment of new or reassignment of existing Task

Forces, sub-committees, or special committees for the use of the Conference

Chairman regarding the appropriateness of the proposal.

101-5 POLICY AND GUIDELINES

A new manual, "Administrative Policies and Guidelines", has been assembled

as a draft of NCWM Publication 3. Included in the manual is material

adopted by the NCWM:

1. since 1970;

2. appearing as part of a committee report related to but not made a part of Handbooks 44 and 130; and

3. setting or expressing policy, or interpretive in nature. Those policies and guidelines falling under the purview of the Executive

Committee have been reviewed by the Committee members by use of a

mail ballot. Comments will be addressed by the Committee at the Interim

meeting in January 1986. Those policies and guidelines falling under the purview of the other NCWM

Committees will be on the agenda of the appropriate committees at the

Interim Meeting in January 1986.

34
Executive Committee

NCWM Publication #3, "Administrative Policy and Guidelines" will be printed

in the Spring of 1986. 101-6 SCHEDULING OF ANNUAL AND INTERIM MEETINGS

The Executive Committee discussed the pros and cons of holding the Interim

and Annual Meetings at times other than January and July respectively. The

weather in Washington, D.C. in January has been a concern to some members primarily because of travel complications.

Changing the time for holding the Interim Meetings can not be done without a similar rescheduling of the Annual Meeting; six months is necessary

for developing Committee reports so that the Announcement Book can be

published and distributed at least two months before the Annual Meeting.

That minimum of two months seems to be required for the interested parties to develop positions of their jurisdictions or organizations for presentation to the Committees at the Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting can not be held much later in the Calendar year than July without jeopardizing the

objective of publishing the latest version of NBS Handbooks 44 and 130 for the State jurisdictions to have them in time for processing to become effective on January 1 of the new year. MEMBERSHIP

102-1 RECOGNITION OF ADVISORY MEMBERS

Activities of the NCWM Committees involve representatives of the Federal

Agencies having regulatory responsibilities. Their representatives are assisting

in the seeking of consensus on issues that involve their responsibilities. The

question raised is "are the Federal Agencies with regulatory responsibilities

adequately recognized in the NCWM?"

This question was discussed in detail and included a review of the involvement of the Advisory Members in the various activities of the

Conference. In recent years, opportunities for that involvement have been

greatly expanded through appointments to the various technical committees

and task forces. This year, Mr. John McCutcheon of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is a member of the Committee on Liaison, and Mr. Dennis Mahoney of the U.S.D.A. Federal Grain Inspection Service is a member of the Technical

Committee on National Type Evaluation. Mr. McCutcheon, Mr. John Taylor of

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Mr. Cavagnaro of the Office

of Consumer Affairs in the White House are members of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements.

The Executive Committee is exploring possibilities for adding representation

of the Advisory membership on committees that are dealing with subjects related to Federal agency interests. No further action is planned at this time.

35
Executive Committee

102-2 ROLE OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

Mr. Art Kroll (Gilbarco), Chairman of the Associate Membership Committee,

met with the Executive Committee to discuss the role of that membership

in the work of the Conference. Mr. Kroll reported on a survey of the

Associate Membership made in November 1984. In summary:

1. a total of 180 questionnaires were sent out;

2. fifty(50) responses were received;

3. over three-fourths of the respondents said that the annual

reception was appropriate and beneficial;

4. half felt that the Associate Membership Committee should be

listed and treated as a standing committee of the NCWM; and

5. almost two-thirds responded that the Associate Membership

could provide a forum for broader industry communication.

The involvement of the Associate Membership was explored by Mr. Kroll and

the Executive Committee. It was observed that:

1. nearly 40 Associate Members are members of various committees; and

2. Associate Members make a significant contribution to the progress of the Conference through other organizations, such as the Scale

Manufacturers Association (SMA), the Industry Committee on Packaging and

Labeling (ICPL), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and the Grocery

Manufacturers of America (GMA).

It was concluded that the Associate Membership invested large amounts of time and contributed successfully to much of the advancement of the work

of the NCWM through many individual and group activities. It was also concluded that the Associate Membership Committee itself represented such

divergent interests that it would be difficult to define a program of involvement that could attract the interest of its membership in general.

The Executive Committee:

1. decided to issue a Directory of Associate Members, alphabetically by Company name;

2. advised Mr. Kroll that, as an Annual Committee of the NCWM, the Associate Membership Committee was entitled to use the Conference letterhead and administrative support for NCWM related activities,

and

3. found the survey results very informative and useful in planning for the continued and growing involvement of the Associate Membership

in the life of the Conference.

36
Executive Committee

102-3 MEMBERSHIP, PROMOTION

The basic question discussed was "How do we interest others (regulatory officials and industry ) in becoming members?".

State and Local Officials Of the estimated 3000-plus weights and measures officials nationwide, over 2400 are listed in the latest Directory. Of that number, only about 600 are

actually members of the NCWM (less that 1 out of 5). The 2400 listed in the Directory have all received the Directory and invitations to become

members; very few have joined.

Distribution of Publications

Members receive a copy of all NBS and NCWM publications. The Committee

reviewed the rationale of this policy and explored alternatives. One such alternative is to establish a basic membership fee plus add-ons

for selected packages of documents. Other professional organizations operate

in this manner, especially if they are made up of members with varying

interests. Basic Fee. Perhaps a "basic" fee of $15 could be established

which would include the Directory, Newsletter, Tech Memos, all meeting announcements, programs, and NCWM proceedings.

State Supplemental Package. In addition to the "basic fee" of

$15.00, a State or local official could sign up for a $25 "State Supplemental Package" which would provide a copy of all other

publications.

Device Industry Supplemental Package. In addition to the "basic fee" of $15.00, a scale industry member could sign up for a $15

"Weighing Industry Supplemental Package" which would provide

all device-related publications but not the commodity-related

publications, such as HB 133. The Executive Committee took no action on this item, but will continue to explore such alternatives. Promotional Items

Previously, the NCWM sold neckties as a promotional item. The ties were

very popular. The Committee explored similar items representative of weights and measures that might appeal to the membership, such as tie tacs, earrings, lapel pins, etc. The Conference Coordinator presented

information on the availability and cost of these items.

37
Executive Committee

Actions Taken at the Interim Meeting

The Executive Committee decided to :

1. mail the next issue of the Newsletter to everyone on the

NCWM mailing list;

2. send a supply of the NCWM membership brochure (with

membership application form) to each State Director for his/her use in promoting membership in the Conference.

3. procure a supply of tie tacs/lapel pins and ties for sale at the 70th Annual Meeting in July 1985, and obtain information on the costs of other items such as belt buckles, scarfs, and license plate holders. Follow- up by Conference Coordinator at the Annual Meeting

1. The Newsletter was mailed to the entire mailing list.

2. Every State office was sent 50 NCWM Brochures for use in promoting Conference membership.

3. Weights and Measures ties, tie tacs, and lapel pins were pur- chased for sale. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

103-1 ELECTIONS, APPOINTMENTS, RESIGNATIONS

The Chairman reported on all appointments made to date. See pages 12 and

13 for the organization chart. Resignation from Committee on Laws and Regulations

Dr. George Mattimoe, Hawaii, resigned as a member of the Committee on Laws and Regulations subsequent to his election as Chairman-Elect in accor- dance with the Constitution, Article IV, Section 2: "the Chairman-Elect shall not serve on any standing Committee other than the Executive Committee."

Appointment to Committee on Laws and Regulations Mr. Allan Nelson, Connecticut was appointed by Chairman Delfino to the

Committee on Laws and Regulations to fill the unexpired term of Dr. Matti- moe.

Election of Treasurer Mr. Charles A. Gardner Jr., Weights and Measures, Suffolk County, was

appointed Treasurer by the Executive Committee to succeed Mr. Nelson.

Resignation from the Executive Committee

Mr. James Blackwood, Dallas, Texas, resigned from the Executive Committee because he has been promoted.

38
Executive Committee

Appointment to the Executive Committee

Mr. John Bartfai, New York, was appointed to the Executive Committee to

fill the unexpired term of Mr. Blackwood. Mr. Bartfai was attending the In- terim Meetings and was therefore able to participate in the activities of the Executive Committee immediately after his appointment.

Sergeants-at-Arms

William Sullivan, Seattle, Washington, and Tom Scott, North Carolina were

appointed as Sergeants-at-Arms for the 70th Annual Meeting.

103-2 FINANCE, FINANCIAL REPORT

At the Interim Meeting the Treasurer (Mr. Nelson) reported on the then

current financial status of the Conference, describing the receipts and

disbursements in relation to the budget, as well as summarizing the

investment of monies surplus to operational needs. At the end of December

1984, expenditures were approximately $10,000 over the budget. The

primary reasons are:

1. continuing requests by State and local committee members

for payment of committee related travel and per diem expenses; and

2. increased number of special task forces and committees in- cluding the two new groups dealing with commodity standards. The Executive Committee reviewed the budget situation and the details surrounding the overexpenditure. It concluded that the need for the

committee activities was valid, that the results to date were excellent, and

that the committee should continue to operate toward the desired results. The Treasurer, in his report, noted that the NCWM had adequate reserves

for the current year at the present rate of spending. He noted, however,

that the reserves would become dangerously low next year; in fact, the NCWM might find itself in a negative cashflow position. As a result of finding the NCWM operating over its budget, and desiring that the committee work of the Conference continue, the Executive Committee decided to raise the registration fee for the 70th Annual Meeting in July 1985 to $135 (see Reference Key 103-3). 103-3 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT

The Executive Secretary reported on the budgets for the future fiscal years

of the Conference. He requested that the Executive Committee establish guidance for the development of out-year budgets because of the need to

raise revenues or limit activities. Some actions considered for increasing revenues included:

1. attain increased membership (see Reference Key 102-3);

2. encourage additional State fiscal support of committee participation;

39
Executive Committee

3. establish a registration fee for the Interim Meetings. Cost

of these meetings is over $20,000 and increasing annually. A registration fee

of $50 for 200 attendees would raise $10,000 covering 50% of the costs;

4. increase registration fee for the Annual Meeting. This Fee

has not been increased for several years. An increase from $50 to $100

would produce about $15,000 in additional revenue;

5. establish a two-tier fee system, Active members (State and

local officials), and Associate and Advisory Members.

The Executive Committee also considered the alternative of reducing expenditures but concluded that the potential benefits of the committee activities of the Conference justified the increased spending level. At the Interim Meeting in January 1985, the Executive Committee:

1. voted to increase the Registration Fee for the 70th Annual

Meeting from $85.00 to $135.00 (including $35 membership fee); and

2. requested the Executive Secretary to prepare a budget for the year beginning July 1, 1985 and have it printed in the Announcement Book. See Appendix A for Fiscal Year 70 (July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986)

Budget.

The proposed Operating Budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1985, as

printed in the Interim Report:

1. establishes separate income (1.5) and disbursement (11) accounts for purchase and sale of promotional items such as ties, tie tacs, and

lapel pins;

2. changes budgeted cost of Special Programs to reflect planned

adjustments in committee and task force activities; and

3. changes the title of Account 1.3 to "Training Modules" and

adds a new Account 12.0 "Training Modules" to maintain records of income

and expense relating to the provision of the training modules separately.

The budget printed as Appendix A of this report replaces the budget printed

as Appendix B of the Interim Report. Assuming that actual expenditures

equal budgeted expenditures, the operating budget will finish the year with an operating surplus of $3,598.

103-4 PUBLICATIONS AND FORMS

Recently, many of the activities of the NCWM have been formalized, including standardization of forms and preparation of publications.

Standardization of Forms

The forms that have been standardized are shown in Table 1.

40
Executive Committee

Table 1 - NCWM Forms

Form No. Form Title

#1 Cover Sheet for Contract

#2 Amendment/Modification of Contract

#3 Committee Ballot #4 Policy and Guidelines Format

#5 Purchase Order or Contract

Preparation of NCWM Publications

The family of NCWM publications and status of each are shown in Table 2,

Table 2 - NCWM Publications

Pub. Title of Publication Status No.

#1 NCWM Constitution and Bylaws Published and Distributed

#2 Weights and Measures Directory Published and Distributed

#3 NCWM Policy and Guidelines Partially compiled

#4 NTEP Policy and Procedures Published and Distributed

#5 NTEP Index of Evaluations Published and Distributed

#6 NTEP Program Information In Development

#7 Weights and Measures Week Guide Published and Distributed

#8 Relationships of NTEP, HB44,

and W & M Law Published and Distributed

103-5 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DIRECTORY

At the Interim Meetings in January 1984, the Membership Subcommittee of

the Executive Committee recommended that the State weights and measures

offices be requested to send complete and current mailing lists of their staffs for inclusion in the Directory. This recommendation was implemented

and the response was excellent. The Weights and Measures Directory has been updated by including the material sent by the States and now contains 2,497 listings (more than double the listings in the previous edition). It was printed as NCWM Publication #2, and mailed to the membership in December 1984. The Executive Committee decided to adopt the following changes for the next edition of the Directory:

41
Executive Committee

1. Show a difference between members and non-members as an

incentive to promote membership (e.g., members in BOLD type, or

print "MEMBER" next to the member's name).

2. Include the OWM and key NBS staff near the front of the Directory.

3. List the State Director first in the State listing in Section II of the Directory.

103-6 ASSOCIATE MEMBER DIRECTORY

The Executive Committee decided that there is a need for a directory of

Associate Members (see Reference Key 102-2). The Executive Secretary was

requested to proceed with the preparation of this directory and to distribute

it to the members of the NCWM.

103-7 NEWSLETTER, W <5c M TODAY

The Membership Subcommittee of the Executive Committee recommended

development of a weights and measures newsletter. The OWM established

such a newsletter, "W & M Today", with Mrs. Joan Koenig as the Editor. Three issues have been distributed to the NCWM membership (June 1984,

November 1984, and June 1985) with enthusiastic acceptance. The Executive

Committee encouraged the continuation of this newsletter. PROGRAM

104-1 PLANNING FOR ANNUAL MEETINGS

71st Annual Meeting, July 20 - 25, 1986

The Executive Secretary reported on the status of planning for the 71st Annual Meeting, to be held at the Marriott Hotel in Albuquerque, New

Mexico. The report included a description of the hotel, room rates, travel

options, and potential social activities. The Marriott is the most recent addition to the major hotels in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The hotel has over 400 rooms, two restaurants, and a

health club. It is eight miles by complimentary limousine from the airport.

Located in the newest section of the city, the hotel is adjacent to a large

shopping mall and other attractive facilities including restaurants, movies,

and stores. Old town Albuquerque is only a ten-minute drive from the hotel. Address

2101 Louisiana Boulevard, NE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

Rate

$66 single or double occupancy. Local tax on room rate is 7.625%.

42
Executive Committee

Parking

Parking in the hotel parking lot is free to hotel guests.

Meetings

All needed meeting rooms are provided gratis on the basis of the expected room occupancy by the NCWM membership.

72nd Annual Meeting, July 19 - 24, 1987

The Executive Secretary reported on the preliminary planning for the 72nd

Annual Meeting to be held in Little Rock, Arkansas at the Excelsior Hotel

contingent on negotiating acceptable room rates and meeting space arrangements. The hotel is located in downtown Little Rock on the Arkansas River. It is part of a complex including the Statehouse Convention Center. The hotel opened November 1982. It is approximately 15 minutes from the airport, has 462 guest rooms, several in-house restaurants, a group of retail shops

off the lobby, and complimentary parking for hotel guests in an attached

parking garage.

73rd Annual Meeting, July 17 - 22, 1988

The Executive Secretary reported on his visit with Dr. Edward Heffron to Grand Rapids, Michigan and the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel. He showed a

video tape description of the hotel and tourist attractions in and near Grand

Rapids. On the basis of his report, the Executive Committee voted to hold

the 73rd Annual Meeting in Grand Rapids at the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel

contingent on negotiation of acceptable room rates. The Hotel is a AAA 5-Diamond and Mobile 4-Star facility. It is an outstanding hotel and includes a variety of restaurants, lounges, retail shops, 24 hour room service, tennis and racquet ball courts, swimming pool and jacuzzi, health club, and parking in an attached parking garage. It is across the Grand River via a foot bridge from the Gerald Ford Presidential Museum.

Future Meetings, Candidate Locations

Proposals have been received to host the National Conference Annual Meeting in the following locations: Seattle, Washington; Columbus, Ohio; and

Albany, New York.

The Executive Secretary visited Seattle, Washington and investigated several

hotels including the Westin, Sheraton, Madison, Four Seasons, Marriott, Red

Lion, Holiday Crown Plaza, and the Hilton. The Marriott and the Red Lion

are adjacent to the airport; all of the other hotels are downtown. He

recommended a downtown location and favors the Sheraton or Westin. 104-2 REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, COORDINATION WITH NCWM

Following up on discussions of the Executive Committee in January 1984

regarding the need to develop closer coordination with the four regional

43
Executive Committee

associations, the OWM assigned Mr. Richard Smith as Regional Coordinator

almost a year ago. He has been working with each of the Regional Associations and their committees to coordinate their agendas with those of the

NCWM and other Regional Associations.

The Executive Committee continued to explore methods for further improving the coordination of NCWM business with the Regional Associations. Several ideas were recommended for discussion later in the week in the meeting

with the Regional Presidents. Additionally, there has been activity in the

mid-west to form a new Regional Association. The Conference Chairman

had invited the Presidents of the Regional Associations to attend the 1985

Interim Meetings to work with the NCWM Executive Committee to further the common interests. See Reference Key 104-3 for a report on these activities. 104-3 REGIONAL PRESIDENTS' MEETING

Purpose of the Meeting

This meeting, held at the invitation of Chairman Delfino, was chaired by

Chairman-Elect Mattimoe.

The four Presidents of the Regional Weights and Measures Associations were

in attendance. They explored candidate organizational and procedural

changes to improve:

1. operation of the Regional Associations, and

2. coordination among the Regional Associations and between the Regionals and the National Conference.

Agenda of the Meeting

1. Establish objective(s) of closer relationship of Regionals with the NCWM.

2. Define what the NCWM can do to achieve objectives including:

a. provision of increased coordination through the Regional Coordinator;

b. insertion of regional mailing lists into the NCWM master file for "target" mailings;

c. sharing of the NCWM "issues file"; and

d. coordination of meeting planning and scheduling.

3. Define what the Regional Associations can do to achieve objectives

including:

a. provision of reports and results of committee actions promptly;

44
Executive Committee

b. informing NCWM of local issues and what support they expect

from the NCWM;

c. study of national agenda items to develop regional positions;

coming to NCWM annual meeting prepared to vote; and

d. encouraging all members to implement national actions.

4. Explore the current activity of mid-west States concerning Regional

Associations and encourage coordination of planning so that the result will be beneficial to those and adjoining States, as well as to the strength of weights and measures nationally.

5. Presentation by Richard Smith of an analysis of the mid-west situation, requested by Chairman Delfino, as the basis for exploration of Regional alignments.

6. Discussion of ways that information can be shared and disseminated more effectively, such as trading rosters of officers, committee reports,

conference and seminar dates and scheduling, technical problems and their resolution, new equipment and test procedures, industry contacts, and

training materials.

Northwest Weights and Measures Association, Reorganization

The Conference Chairman asked the Executive Secretary to work toward

reconciliation among the member States of the Northwest Weights and Measures Association and expansion of the Association so that a stronger Association emerges.

The Executive Secretary wrote a memorandum (May 7, 1985) to the members of the Executive Committee, the State Directors of the Northwest

area, and the Presidents of the four Regional Associations, proposing an

approach to resolve the situation. The memorandum was discussed at the

Spring Meeting of the Northwest Weights and Measures Association. The

Executive Secretary was advised that the group agreed with his proposals.

A new Constitution and Bylaws for the Association, drafted by the Executive

Secretary, was mailed to the Directors on May 31, 1985 with a request that comments be sent to him by June 14, 1985. Most of the Directors responded with comments in writing; the others were

called by telephone. Comments were reviewed by the Executive Secretary,

who then modified the draft Constitution and Bylaws and returned the

revision to the State Directors on June 28, 1985 so that they would be

prepared to resolve all of the comments at a special meeting for this purpose on the afternoon of July 18, 1985 at the Annual Meeting of the NCWM. All comments appeared to be resolvable. 104-4 TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (Joint Session with the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs).

45
Executive Committee

National Training Program

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs updated

the Executive Committee on the status of the National Training Program,

including the financial position of the NBS grant to the NCWM, plans for extension of the grant, status of module development, plans for distribution of the completed modules and module revisions, and the relationship of the

Certification Plan and Program Evaluation to the development of modules

(see the Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs for details).

Weights and Measures Week

NCWM Publication #7, "Weights and Measures Week Guide," was developed by

Peggy Adams (Bucks County, Pennsylvania), printed, and distributed to each

of the designated State Weights and Measures Week Coordinators in January,

1985. The Education Committee plans to continue to develop this material and to expand it into Module 23, "Communications", in the National Training Pro- gram.

104-5 TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Richard Thompson (Maryland), Chairman of Task Force on Commodity

Requirements, updated the Executive Committee on the status of its work.

Appendix B is a copy of the Tax Force's progress report. The Executive

Committee is pleased with the progress of this group and encourages all members to study this report.

In March 1985, Task Force Chairman Thompson requested flour data to be

collected by State and local weights and measures agencies. Fifteen States and one local jurisdiction provided information. The Task Force wishes to thank all those who were able to help.

On June 11-13, 1985, the Task Force held its third meeting at the National Bureau of Standards. At that meeting:

1. Representatives from the flour industry provided information

regarding the milling, packaging, and distribution of flour in the United

States. In addition, they developed a mathematical model that fit actual

data on weight loss in flour taken by the Food and Drug Administration in the early 1970's. Weight loss as much as 6% was found to occur under some circumstances.

2. Preliminary analysis of flour data from weights and measures juris- dictions was briefly reviewed.

3. The first draft of a memorandum of understanding between USDA

and State weights and measures agencies was reviewed and revised.

46
Executive Committee

4. The Task Force was supplied data from California. It also identified the type of data that might already exist in USDA files that would assist in determining the size of the "gray area" for red meat and

poultry if wet tare is used to check such packages.

Two meetings are planned in the fall: September 25-27 and December 3-5, 1985. Plans for these meetings include:

1. Determining if the industry-provided mathematical model fits the

flour data provided by weights and measures officials.

2. Determining the size of the "gray area" under given conditions for testing packaged flour.

3. Determining if existing data can be used to define the "gray area"

for package checks using wet tare for red meat and poultry.

4. Providing a policy and test procedure to be used by weights and measures agencies when inspecting packages of flour, red meat, or poultry.

5. Completing revision of a memorandum of understanding between the USDA and State weights and measures agencies. This memorandum would be

forwarded to the Executive Committee for review and a decision on recommendation to the membership for adoption.

6. Providing an administrative procedure to be used by the Conference

to address other commodities susceptible to moisture loss. The Task Force held a special meeting on Wednesday morning, July 17 to

brief the membership on the status of Task Force progress and future plans.

104-6 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMODITY STANDARDS

The Chairman Mr. Don Stagg (Alabama) reported on the activities and the

recommendations of the Subcommittee on Commodity Standards. The Subcommittee studied the following subjects.

Adoption of a Standard

The need for a national standard in package test methods, such as NBS

Handbook 133, to be adopted by the NCWM and the States was explored.

The Subcommittee considered the actions of the Southern and Western

Weights and Measures Associations which recommended the adoption of the Second Edition of NBS Handbook 133 by the Conference on a tentative basis effective January 1986. Additionally, the Subcommittee had information

based on an informal polling of the Directors of the States who are members of the Northeast Weights and Measures Association, indicating that

a majority favor adoption of the Handbook. The Subcommittee recommended

that a voting item be put on the agenda of the 70th Annual Meeting for adoption of NBS Handbook 133, Second Edition.

47
Executive Committee

Post Adoption Management of NBS HB 133

The Subcommittee discussed various alternatives for the management of the

evolution of NBS HB 133 if it is adopted by the Conference. They proposed

that, upon adoption by the Conference, the Handbook would become an NCWM document, and subsequent changes or additions would be made as a

result of formal action by the membership just as NBS Handbooks 44 and

130 are now managed. The NBS role would revert to that of technical

advisor. The Subcommittee was aware that the Executive Committee was reviewing

the roles and functions of the standing committees. Therefore, it decided to recommend that the assignment of the management of HB 133 be made by

the Executive Committee.

Changes to HB 133

The Subcommittee reviewed the changes incorporated in the Second Edition

of HB 133 as well as other candidate recommended changes and additions. They concluded that the Second Edition is now acceptable to most of the State jurisdictions and industry members. Additionally, they noted that the

major candidate items for change or addition to the Handbook are being

addressed by the Conference. Therefore, the Subcommittee proposes to pass

to the appropriate standing committee the list and description of the items

for consideration in the evolution of the Handbook.

Subcommittee Chairman Stagg attended the Annual Meetings of the Northeastern and Northwest Weights and Measures Associations and presented a

report on the work of the Subcommittee and its recommendations regarding

adoption and subsequent evolution of the contents of NBS Handbook 133. Both of the Associations voted to recommend adoption of the Handbook by

the NCWM at its 70th Annual Meeting, thus putting all four Regional Associations in favor of adoption.

Richard Davis, Chairman of the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling (ICPL) reported that the ICPL supports the adoption of Handbook 133 by

the NCWM.

Executive Committee Recommendations

The Executive Committee:

1. Recommends adoption of NBS Handbook 133, Second Edition, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods", October 1984 by the National

Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. Plans to assign management of HB 133, if adopted, to the Committee on Laws and Regulations.

104-7 TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

Mr. N. David Smith (North Carolina), Chairman of the Task Force on Motor

Fuels, updated the Executive Committee on the status of its work which

included plans to work in the following areas: 4g
Executive Committee

1. A summary of existing State requirements for motor fuel will be

finalized.

2. A draft Uniform Motor Fuel Law and accompanying regulations will be reviewed and revised. See Report of the Committee on Liaison for detailed report.

104-8 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS

The Task Force, chaired by Mr. Joe Swanson (Alaska) met during the weekend prior to the Interim Meetings and defined the scope of the Task Force,

decided on specific projects to undertake, and developed a workplan including a questionnaire to send to weights and measures jurisdictions to refine infor- mation on their needs. 104-9 CUSTOMS

The Commissioner of Customs has requested comments related to a proposal

for a system for the accreditation of commercial testing laboratories. Quoting from the Federal Register Notice (Thursday, October 18, 1984), the

accreditation procedure will "assess the technical soundness of commercial

testing laboratories" that "perform weighing, measuring, and/or gauging of certain commodities to be used in determining the proper rate of duty for the commodities".

The NBS responded with the comment that the National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) might be considered as the operating agent for such a system, and the States already have laboratories

to provide specific services to answer some of the Customs needs.

The Executive Committee requested that the Executive Secretary advise the

Conference of any future developments that might affect the States. NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

105-1 POLICY AND PROCEDURES

The business of the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) was conducted

by the Executive Committee sitting as the Board of Governors of the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP). The NTEP has been operational

since October 1984. To date, 12 Certificates of Conformance have been

issued for devices that have met the requirements of HB44. No problems

have been encountered that needed remedial action through the Board of Governors or the committees of the Conference.

Policy and Procedures.

The NTEP Policy and Procedures was adopted by the Conference at the July

1984 Annual Meeting. It has been reproduced and printed as NCWM Publi- cation #4. No comments or recommendations have been received by the

Executive Committee regarding the Policy and Procedures.

49
Executive Committee

Certificate of Conformance

The Certificate of Conformance was designed and printed by NBS. After

initial use, a modification of the format was found necessary to provide

additional space to describe "Standard Features and Options" for some cases. The NBS had a second version of the Certificate printed; both versions are

available for use depending on the information that must be entered on the

Certificate. See Appendix C for the two versions of the Certificate of Conformance.

105-2 NTEP LOGO

The Executive Committee agreed on a general design for an NTEP logo. It is based on the official NCWM logo modified to include the letters NTEP in the center in place of the arm and balance. The Executive Secretary was

authorized to proceed with the development of the logo, and to work with

the Committee to establish the policy for the use of the logo.

The Executive Secretary balloted the Executive Committee and the

Committee unanimously approved:

1. the recommended NTEP Logo;

2. the proposed language for use of the Logo; and

3. the proposed language for use by regulators and industry when

referencing approval of devices under NTEP.

The Executive Committee recommends:

1. adoption of the NTEP Logo, and

2. adoption of the following section to be added to NCWM

Publication 4,"National Type Evaluation Program, Policy and Procedures" to govern the use of the logo and references to the Certificates of Conformance by others. The Logo was printed and copies are available from the NCWM office. Black

and white glossy copies are free of charge. Multi-color peelable 3 1/2"

decals are available at 50 cents each or $40.00 per hundred.

P. REFERENCES TO NTEP ACTIVITIES

The use and effectiveness of the NTEP system depends on the extent to which knowledge of the operation of the system and the results of its eval- uations are known and requested.

1. RESTRICTION

Recipients must not claim that the Certificate of Conformance carries

with it an endorsement or approval of the product by the National

Bureau of Standards.

50
Executive Committee

Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance by the National Bureau of Standards "constitutes evidence of the conformance of a type of device

with the requirements of NBS Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, and 105-3"

only (see Paragraph C.5 of this document).

2. PERMISSIBLE USE OF STATEMENTS AND NTEP LOGO

a. The Manufacturer

The manufacturer may communicate to clients and the

public the fact that a Certificate of Conformance was

issued for a device. State officials will automatically re- ceive copies of all Certificates of Conformance issued and

will not need to be advised of this fact by the manufacturer.

(1) Statement

The following statement may be used in company

correspondence, brochures, and professional, technical, and trade publications:

"Certificate of Conformance (insert Certificate

number) was issued under the National Type

Evaluation Program of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures"

(2) Logo

The NTEP Logo (see below) may be: - used in conjunction with the above statement as

well as in advertising materials for the device for which the Certificate of Conformance was issued; and

- affixed to any device manufactured as being the same as the NTEP approved device. However, sale and use of individual devices manufactured are subject to acceptance testing by State and local juris- dictions.

b. The States

States participating in the NTEP (permitting the sale of devices in their States based on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance) and/or States operating NTEP testing

laboratories are encouraged to communicate their

activities to potential clients and the public. NTEP

authorization means that a laboratory is competent to perform standard tests of specific weighing or measuring

devices (see Section C. Definitions).

51
Executive Committee

A statement about the States participation and/or authorization and the NTEP logo may be used in correspondence,

brochures, and test reports and data sheets (provided the

tests or services are performed in accordance with the terms of its authorization).

(1) Statement

A State whose laboratory is authorized may use the

following statement: "Authorized by the National Bureau of Standards

under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP)

for testing — (identify device types covered by the Authorization Certificate)".

A State accepting a Certificate of Conformance

may use the following statement: "(Name of State) — permits the sale of weighing or measuring devices for use based on the issuance of the NTEP Certificate of Conformance".

(2) Logo

The NTEP Logo (see below) may be used in conjunction with the above statements as well as alone

in materials dealing with the NTEP.

Figure 2 - NTEP Logo

c. Questions About Use of Statements or Logo

Any questions regarding the use of the statements or logo not specifically covered above, or any questions concerning

the propriety or acceptability of their use in a particular

situation, should be brought to the attention of the NTEP

Board of Governors through the NCWM Executive Secretary.

d. The NTEP Logo

Glossy black and white positives, and adhesive backed

copies of the logo, are available from the NCWM office.

52
Executive Committee

105-3 INDEX OF DEVICE EVALUATIONS

NCWM Publication #5, "National Type Evaluation Program - Index of Device

Evaluations", has been published. It contains listings of all the:

1. Reports of Test issued under the prior Prototype Program of the National Bureau of Standards,

2. Certificates of Conformance issued by the National Bureau of Standards under the National Type Evaluation Program, and

3. related addendums to each of the above.

Three listings are provided:

1. alphabetical by company;

2. alphabetical by type of device; and

3. chronological by class, Report of Test number, and Certificate of Conformance number.

The system will accept information on future evaluations under NTEP.

105-4 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR NTEP

The Executive Committee reviewed the status of the adoption of the Uniform

State Regulation for National Type Evaluation. Based on information provided

as of December 31, 1984, eighteen (18) States and one (1) city are officially

using the Uniform Regulation or its provisions as follows: Uniform Regulation adopted and in effect in four (4) States (California,

Connecticut, North Carolina, OhioT and one (1) city (Kansas City);

Uniform Regulation in the process of adoption in four (4) States (Alabama, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico); and

provisions of the Uniform Regulation being applied under State administrative procedures in ten (10) States (Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia,

Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, West

Virginia). 105-5 LABORATORY AUTHORIZATION

A new handbook, NBS Handbook 143, "State Weights and Measures

Laboratories - Program Handbook," has been published. Part I of the

Handbook describes the procedures followed by NBS in certifying State weights and measures laboratories for the production of reliable metrological measurements. Part II describes the procedures followed by the NBS in the authorization of state laboratories to conduct device evaluations under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP).

53
Executive Committee

At the time of the Interim Meetings, California and the Federal Grain In- spection Service qualified as NTEP laboratories. The NBS was working with

Alabama, New York, and Ohio toward authorization of their laboratories. The Weights and Measures Laboratory of the State of Ohio was authorized

as a testing facility under NTEP on April 1, 1985. A ceremony of dedication was held at the Ohio laboratory on June 24, 1985. Governor Richard

Celeste of Ohio and Albert Tholen of NBS addressed the attendees. Mr. Tholen presented the NBS certificate of authorization to Director of Agriculture Locker who in turn presented it to the Governor.

105-6 NBS ROLE IN NTEP

NBS Special Publication 250, Appendix, "Calibration and Related

Measurement Services," has been revised to define the role of NBS in the

NTEP.

105-7 RELATIONSHIPS OF NTEP, HB 44, AND W 6c M LAW

Due to many recent new developments in the device inspection and control

activities of the NCWM,there is considerable confusion about the

inter-relationships of the NTEP, Handbook 44 and its new Scales Code, and

the roles of the NCWM, the States, and the NBS. The Executive Secretary

developed a paper, "Relationships among Weights and Measures Law,

Handbook 44, the new Scales Code, and the NTEP" for use as his presentation to the members of the Scale Manufacturers Association. After

review of this paper by the Executive Committee, the Committee

recommended that the Executive Secretary reproduce the paper as a NCWM

Information Bulletin and distribute it to all State Directors and industry

members participating in the NTEP.

The paper was edited and printed as NCWM Weights and Measures Information Bulletin #8.

105-8 NTEP BROCHURE

One of the tasks to be completed for the NTEP is the development of an "NTEP Brochure" that succinctly provides information about the purpose of NTEP, its benefits, and how a company uses the system. The Executive

Secretary agreed to draft a brochure for review at the Interim Meeting in January 1986. 105-9 LOAD CELL INTERCOMPARISON

On Wednesday, January 30, 1985, during the Interim Meetings, a special

meeting was held at the NBS to plan for establishing a program for the intercomparison of facilities used for the testing of load cells. Such a program would involve the United States (NBS), Great Britain, The Federal

Republic of Germany, The Netherlands, and Australia. The purpose of the

program is to develop the basis for reciprocity among the participating

nations with respect to acceptance of approvals of load cells for use in commercial devices.

54
Executive Committee

Success of this program will provide opportunities for enrichment of the National Type Evaluation Program. Testing check lists and protocols will have been established, and testing equipment and skills defined. The development of the intercomparison program is being coordinated by Mr. David

Edgerly, NBS, who, with his comprehensive understanding of the NTEP, will be bringing the interests of the two together.

Ezio Delfino, California, Chairman

G. Mattimoe, Hawaii, Chairman-Elect

S. Hindsman, Arkansas, Past Chairman

J. Bartfai, New York

C. Forester, Texas

L. Holloway, Idaho

F. Nagele, Michigan

N. Ross, Nebraska

R. Walker, Indiana

C. Gardner, New York, Treasurer

A. Tholen, NBS, Executive Secretary

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Appendix A - NCWM FY 70 (July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986) Budget

Appendix B - Task Force on Commodity Requirements, Progress Report

Appendix C - Certificates of Conformance

55
Executive Committee

APPENDIX A

OPERATING BUDGET 1985-86

(July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986)

INOCME

1.1 REGISTRATION FEES

1.2 MEMBERSHIP FEES

1.3 TRAINING MXULES

1.4 INTEREST

1.5 PRQVDTICNAL ITBVB

1.5.1 Tie Tacks

1.5.2 Ties

1.9 MISCELLANEOUS

DISBURSEMENTS

2.0

3.0

5.0

ANNUAL MEETING

INTERIM MEETINGS

SPECIAL PROGRAMS

0 4,000

2,500

2,500

2,500

1,000

500

2,000

2,000

5.1 L&R CTE

5.2 ED CTE.

5.3 NTEP

5.4 OIML*

5.5 TF Ot

5.6 S&T CTE

5.7 OTHER

5.8 TF MF

5.9

6.0 CHAIR EXPENSES

6.1 CHAIRMAN 7,500

6.2 C-ELBCT 2,500

7.0 MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM

8.0 PRINTING

9.0 ADMINISTRATION

11.0 PRQVCTIONAL ITBVB

11.1 Tie Tacks 69th

11.2 Ties

12.0 TRAINING MXULES

Under (Over) Budget

*$8,000 authorized by NOW Policy

30,000*

45,500J

2,825?

1,3004

2,500;>

3,8005 200

86,125 6

14,000

23,000r 17,000'

10,0008

4,5009>

1,500*°

7,600"

2,42712

2,500 13

82,527

3,598

14

56
Executive Committee

NOTES

The Registration Fee has been $85.00 ($50.00 Fee and $35.00 NCftM Membership). As a result of action by the Executive Conmittee taken at the

Interim Meetings of the Conference in Jan. 1985, the Registration Fee

was raised to $135.00 ($100.00 Fee and $35.00 NCKM Membership). Total

estimated Fee income is 300 x $100.00 = $30,000.

The NCWVI Membership portion of the Registration Fee is still $35.00 per registrant. Estimated Membership Fee income from the Annual Meeting is therefore 300 x $35.00 = $10,500. Additionally, the estimated Membership income from the Spring mailing is 1,000 x $35.00 = $35,000. Total

estimated income f rem Member ships is $45,500.

Estimated income from sale of documents is $2,825 derived from the sale

of training modules as follows:

Training

Module 27 - 50 Student Manuals $15.00 = $750.00

10 Instructor Manuals $20.00 = 200.00

Module 1 - 25 Student Manuals $20.00 = 500.00

5 Instructor Manuals $25.00 = 125.00

Module 2 - 50 Student Manuals $20.00 = 1000.00

10 Instructor Manuals $25.00 = 250.00

Total 2825.00

Because of the deficit spending, the average assets earning interest

will be reduced from approximately $50,000 to $25,000; interest rates

are also less than during the last year. Estimated interest income has

been reduced to $1,300 . Assumes all supplies on hand are sold in this FY. Total estimated income is $86,125 an increase of $14,750 over 69th FY

derived mostly from the increase in the Registration Fee. The largest overrun in the 69th Budget was in this account. Because of

the establishment of new task forces coupled with the decrease in the

funding of conmittee activities by the home jurisdictions of the State

and local government members of the conmittees, the incurred expenses

exceeded budgeted by $14,000 ($21,000 - $7,000). The 70th Budget of

$17,000 will be difficult to control unless expenses billed to the NCKM

can be reduced. This can be achieved by a combination of assumption of

expenses by the jurisdictions and searching for the least cost air

fares, hotel and meal costs. No change.

Slight decrease due to change in printing supplier.

57
Executive Committee

The reduction of the budgeted amount by $4500.00 brings this account back to the levels in prior years. The past year was high because of

the large number of new NCVM publications established in the program to formalize the organization and procedures of the Conference.

An increase to cover costs of depreciation of computer terminal, printer

($1,800 based on depreciating $9,000 capital expenditure over a five

year period) and maintenance and use of mailing list (handled on contract).

Cost of ties

Cost of reproducing modules for sale.

An increase of approximately $1,000 overall is proposed. The total

proposed budget of $82,527 should be attainable with careful control

over printing and special program costs. This proposal will also generate an operating surplus of $3,598 which is recomnended as prudent planning.
Executive Committee

APPENDIX B

PROGRESS REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE

ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

Executive Summary:

Federal and State laws and regulations require accuracy of net contents statements on prepackaged goods.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) has set a

policy of "net weight at the time of sale." Federal and State laws and regulations both require that reasonable

variations for moisture loss be recognized. Neither the NCWM nor consumer organizations have been able to bring about a change in these

portions of our laws and regulations at the National or State levels. The NCWM established the Task Force on Commodity Requirements

with the goal of resolving the moisture loss issue in the areas of red

meat, poultry, and flour. The Task Force on Commodity Requirements proposes to formulate

"Compliance Testing Procedures for Products Subject to Moisture Loss"

to assist weights and measures officials in determining whether packages comply with the laws and regulations.

The Task Force will use red meat, poultry, and flour as pilot cases for developing the specific numbers and procedures to be used. The compliance testing procedures will be based on the following

model:

Out of Compliance

further information

will be needed

if actual net weight

falls in this

"gray area"

In Compliance

ACTUAL WEIGHT AT TIME OF SALE

59
Executive Committee

The Task Force objectives are: To decide where the borders of the "gray area" begin and end

based on data submitted to it by weights and measures officials and industry representatives.

To formulate procedures that will build in assurances, as much

as possible, against abuse. To work towards the establishment of a formal Federal-State

understanding between USDA (Meat and Poultry) and States. The Task Force is encouraged by the willingness of business, Federal

Government, and weights and measures representatives to specify what

they are willing to do to meet these objectives.

PROGRESS REPORT

The Task Force on Commodity Requirements was established by NCWM

Chairman Ezio Delfino at the 69th Annual Meeting in Boston, August 2, 1984. Mr. Delfino gave as a specific charge to this Task Force the resolution of the "MOISTURE LOSS" issue in the areas of red meat, poultry, and flour. He

asked that the Task Force apply three criteria to any proposal; that it be:

fair to packagers,

verifiable by regulatory agencies, and

permit value comparison by consumers. The Task Force added the following criteria:

fair to all retailers, large and small

applicable to all products subject to moisture loss, not just red meat,

poultry, and flour. The membership of this Task Force has been drawn from business, Federal

agencies, consumer interests, and the four weights and measures regions, and

are: Richard L. Thompson

Mahlon A. Burnette Kenneth Butcher

Charles Cavagnaro

Paul Engler

Edward Heffron

Tom Klevay

Kenneth May

John McCutcheon

Allan Nelson

John Taylor

Carroll Brickenkamp

Maryland (CHAIRMAN)

American Meat Institute Maryland (Southern WMA)

U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs Los Angeles (Western WMA)

Michigan (NWWMA)

Millers' National Federation

Holly Farms

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Connecticut (NEWMA)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

National Bureau of Standards

60
Executive Committee

Ttiree meetings have been held: a one-day meeting November 28, 1984

a 1 1/2 day meeting January 17 and 18, 1985

a three day meeting June 11-13, 1985

Another three-day meeting is planned in the summer of 1985. The Task Force first focussed on defining the issue. The discussion below

describes moisture loss and the circumstances in commerce that presently

exist because of this issue. What is "Moisture Loss" Federal interpretation of reasonable variations as permitted in the law

allows a group of identical packages of red meat, poultry, or flour, for example labeled one pound at the packing plant, to weigh one pound "on the

average". This means that the contents of each package could actually

weigh slightly more or slightly less than one pound; however, when all the

package content weights are summed together and divided by the number of packages, that resultant number (the average) would have to at least equal

the labeled weight of one pound. State requirements hold packages to this same requirement. State and Federal requirements also permit "...reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good

distribution practices... ."1 If a group of packages that are not air tight are

exposed to environmental conditions of temperature and relative humidity

under which moisture will evaporate, all packages lose weight. Some

packages will lose less than others because they are insulated by packages

around them or for other reasons; but certainly no packages will gain

moisture while identical packages at the same time lose moisture—if the

relative humidity and temperature remain stable. Therefore, the average

net weight will fall as moisture is lost. If the average net weight of a group

of packages was one pound at the packing plant and if those packages lost moisture while being shipped, the average net weight would be less than one

pound when tested at the retail store. The Present Dilemma

Seven years ago, on March 29, 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that

"...the State law must yield to the Federal...."; that is, part of a California

law was preempted by Federal law and regulations. Neither California law

nor regulations (at that time) permitted "reasonable variations caused by loss

or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practices..." Al- though most State regulations did at the time of the court decision and do

specifically now permit such variations, the issue of moisture loss is still unresolved, because of many factors, only a few of which will be listed here:

Rotation frcm Federal regulations 9CFRl317.2(h) (2) and

21 CFR§101.105(q)

61
Executive Committee

State and local weights and measures regulatory agencies are the primary compliance testing resource at the retail store. Most weights and measures agencies require packages that are put up by the retail store to be at or above net weight at time of sale (that is, the average net weight of the packages must equal or exceed the labeled net weight

declaration). Many of these agencies use a dry (unused) tare when

checking net weight; this practice allows for moisture lost into the

packaging materials by counting such moisture as part of the net

weight. (Moisture lost to evaporation is not accounted for by this method.) Products that are subject to moisture loss, and packaged at some location other than the retail store must, by State and Federal

requirements, be permitted variations due to moisture loss. Weights and measures officials cannot tell by any practicable field test whether

short weight at time of sale for these products is due to moisture loss or short weight at time of pack. This problem is treated in a variety

of ways by weights and measures officials, including:

Some do not test such products because of the confusion concerning what standards to apply.

Some require net weight at time of sale. Some provide a fixed tolerance for one, two, or all three categories of packages (e.g., meat, poultry, and flour). Some follow up retail inspection with wholesale or packaging

plant tests in which full net weight is required at these latter locations. Packagers who ship their products interstate are treated differently

depending upon destination and the product shipped.

In some jurisdictions, packages susceptible to moisture loss are

tested, but in other jurisdictions no tests are made.

Flour may be given a 2% allowance by one State and no fixed

allowance (or no allowance at all) by a neighboring State. Flour may be given an allowance in one State, but red meat may

receive no allowance in that same State. Packagers of bulk packages of poultry sometimes will be

back-billed by a large supermarket chain because the destination

weight is less than the invoiced (when-packed) weight, but packagers of consumer-sized packages of poultry are given a moisture

loss allowance by some jurisdictions.

62
Executive Committee

These situations have arisen due to the lack of guidance.

Retailers who sell bulk-packed products in "direct sales" over a scale to

a consumer must deliver full weight at the time of sale. Retail store packaged goods may also be required to be full weight at the time of

sale. The bulk-packed product, however, may be permitted moisture loss such that it may arrive at the retail store with less (on the average)

than is declared on the label. Consumers take a great deal for granted in the area of net weight

labeling. Few consumers know that the labeled net weight on an indi- vidual package is an "average" declaration; that, in fact, each package

may not contain at least what the label declares. With the present

conditions of full net weight being required over a scale, and the moisture loss permitted for prepackaged items, a consumer who wishes to compare the price per pound of flour, red meat, or chicken

prepackaged for the consumer by a packager in a distant State cannot make a value comparison between such a package and the same

product individually weighed for him at a retail store (which may come

from the same source packager in a bulk package to the same retail store). Net weight is not defined as the amount of solids in a package.

Conclusions

Existing Federal and State regulations permit a variety of interpretations

concerning moisture loss by regulatory officials, packagers, and consumers. These interpretations result in inequities to the consumer, to various packagers, and to retail and wholesale marketers. A national policy with a single

interpretation of the regulations is needed. Changes to some regulations

may be needed. Compliance testing standards should be developed that are compatible at all levels of government (Federal, State, and local) verifiable,

and fair to all levels of marketing (production point through retail). What about existing laws and regulations?

Both Federal and State laws and regulations require accuracy in net contents

labeling. Test methods that require that the average net contents equal or exceed the labeled net contents are accepted by both Federal and State agencies as suitable for determining whether packages comply with these and

other regulations that also requrie recognizing "reasonable variations for good

manufacturing practices". Those regulations that require recognition of "reasonable variations casued by loss or grain of moisture..." are at issue. It

is the opinion of the Task Force members that neither the NCWM nor consumer organizations have the influence or organized constituency to bring

about repeal of these sections of our laws or regulations at the National or

State levels.

63
Executive Committee

How can we reconcile moisture loss requirements Wjtn NCWM policy of "net weight at the time of sale"? The Task Force supports and applauds the NCWM policy of "net weight at the time of sale"; however, there are areas of ambiguity in this policy that

need to be better defined. "Net weight at time of sale" means that:

1. Inspection and test at retail is imperative (but not necessarily the only

means) for determining whether both good distribution as well as good

manufacturing practices have been followed.

However, the following fact is also part of a "net weight at time of sale" policy:

2. Because reasonable variations for good manufacturing practice are

recognized, some packages purchased by a consumer will contain less than what is stated on the label. (The average concept means that some packages can weigh less than the label as long as other packages

compensate for these short-weight ones.)

The Task Force members believe that it is necessary to recognize an additional fact in the "net weight at time of sale" policy.

3. Because reasonable variations for good distribution practice must be

recognized, some packages, because of their physical properties, the

way they are packaged, and the environmental history they undergo,

will contain less than what is stated on the label. (This is the basis of the moisture loss issue and recognizes that certain types of commodities - for example, flour - in certain types of packages - for example,

in a paper wrap - in certain situations - for example, in a dry climate

for three months after packaging - will contain less than the labeled

weight.)

What the Task Force Proposes to Do

The Task Force members believe that national guidelines are needed to serve

as ground rules for fair play and to provide equitable conditions for commerce.

The basis for these national guidelines has already been established by the

publication of the Second Edition of NBS Handbook 133. This provides

sampling and test procedures that, if followed, reduce the ambiguity of requirements for packagers and inspectors in net contents compliance. The

Task Force looks forward to the adoption of Handbook 133 by the NCWM

and to the annual review and amendment process, which will keep the manual up-to-date and effective.

The Task Force intends to formulate "Compliance Test Procedures for Products Subject to Moisture Loss". These procedures should be

operationally realistic and be designed to assist a field inspector in determining whether packages comply with the laws and regulations.

64
Executive Committee

The Task Force proposes using red meat, poultry, and flour as the pilot cases for developing the actual numbers and procedures to be used. Input

from regulatory agencies and business representatives will be used as the

basis for these numbers and procedures.

Additionally, the Task Force will seek to build into the procedures, assur- ances against abuse. A model of the Task Force approach follows. Compliance Test Procedures for Products Subject to Moisture Loss The compliance test procedures will be based on the following model:

Consider the actual average weight found at retail inspection to be like points on a "ruler": LABELED

WEIGHT

Less than the labeled weight Greater than the labeled weight

t ,

The compliance test model can be pictured as fitting on top of this ruler:

Out of Compliance area In Compliance

>

k.

(2) (3) d)

Thus, the vast majority of packages tested by the inspector will fall into two categories:

(1) If the average net contents is above a value as yet to be specified, the inspected lot will be considered to comply with the regulations.

(2) If the average net contents falls below some other value (also to be

specified), the inspected lot will be considered to be out of compliance

with the regulations.

(3) A small percentage of package lots will fall into a third area called the "GRAY AREA" on the ruler. If the average net contents falls in this gray area, further information must be gathered in order to make

65
Executive Committee

a final decision on whether the inspected lot does or does not comply

with the regulations.

Two Examples

For discussion purposes, subdivide moisture loss in packaged goods into two

"types":

Moisture lost into the packaging materials. Moisture lost from fresh meat and poultry is principally of this type.

Moisture lost into the atmosphere. Moisture lost from flour is of this type.

Moisture Loss in Fresh Meat and Poultry

The compliance test procedure model for fresh meat and poultry would look

like the following:

Labeled Weight

Less than the labeled weight

Out of Compliance

(2)

Greater than the labeled weight

In Compliance

d)

(3)

A small "gray area" extends from the labeled weight to the left (in the

direction of less than the labeled weight).

(1) To the right (1); inspected lots are in compliance if the average net weight is equal to or greater than the labeled net weight. It does not matter what kind of tare was used to determine an "in-compliance"

condition.

(2) To the left (2), inspected lots are out of compliance if the average net weight falls in this segment of the "ruler". It does not matter what

kind of tare is used to determine this out-of-compliance condition.

(3) Inspected lots fall into the "gray area" (3) on the ruler only if the net weight is determined using wet tare or by not counting free liquid as part of the net weight. The steps necessary to deal with lots that fall into the gray area must still be determined.

86
Executive Committee

There would be no gray area if dry tare were used to determine compliance. Any inspected lot of packages whose average net weight is found with dry tare to be less than the labeled weight is automatically

be out of compliance.

Moisture Loss in Flour

The compliance test procedure model for flour is the following:

Labeled Weight

Out of Compliance

(2)

In Compliance

o)

(3)

(1) To the right (1), inspected lots are in compliance if the average net weight is equal to or greater than the labeled net weight.

(2) If the average net weight of inspected lots fall to the left (2), the lots are out of compliance.

(3) If the inspected lots fall in the "gray area" (3), the field inspector must collect a sample and send it to the State laboratory for a moisture content test before a final determination is made on lot compliance or noncompliance. (Meanwhile, the inspected lot may be put on "hold" pending possible court action if inspected lots fail to comply).

Summary of Method

If the inspected lots fall in segments (1) or (2), no further testing or

investigation is necessary by field inspection forces in order to declare the

lots in or out of compliance. Only in the "gray area" (3) will additional

inspection efforts be required by testing or investigation beyond the field inspector's routine. Therefore, the Task Force will make every effort to reduce this "gray area" to an absolute minimum.

67
Executive Committee

One question before the Task Force and before the Conference is: Where

should the boundary of the "gray area" be for flour - the points at which

additional testing will be required to determine compliance?

If the right edge of the gray area begins wherever an inspected lot average net weight falls below the labeled net weight, will too many

laboratory tests have to be conducted?

If the right edge of the gray area begins at one or two percent less than the labeled weight, will this permit abuse of such field test screening procedures by short weighing on the part of the packager?

What facts or data can be used to set the left edge of the gray area

in order to limit the size of gray area? Another question that must be resolved is: How can the gray area in red

meat and poultry testing (using wet tare for example) be better defined?

Critical Assurances The Task Force members realize that the key element to making any test method workable is to build in assurances against abuse. The Task Force

will continue to refine these methods with such assurances in mind. An essential outcome of this effort will be to delineate the responsibilities of industry, Federal agencies, and weights and measures officials. The Task

Force will continue to discuss: the feasibility of providing up-to-date dry tare samples to weights and measures offices or to a central source by red meat and poultry packagers;

the documentation that a packager has to maintain concerning in-plant net weight (and for flour-moisture content) records; guidance concerning suitability and maintenance of in-plant scales; and

the reconciliation of different definitions of a lot as established for USDA meat and poultry inspection and the "lot, shipment, or delivery"

that weights and measures officials use. A critical objective in this effort is to establish formal working relationships

(1) between USDA Meat and Poultry and the States, and (2) among the States themselves.

Establishment of Cooperation Between USDA and the States Two Federal regulatory agencies are represented on the Task Force. USDA

Meat and Poultry Inspection operates continuously at the packaging and

processing plants. A Federal seal is put on all packages that leave a Federal plant. The seal indicates that the Federal government has inspected the

product and that it meets all Federal requirements; e.g., that it is wholesome, unadulterated, and accurately labeled.

68
Executive Committee

In contrast, FDA inspection is similar to weights and measures inspection,

except for where it takes place. FDA inspectors are not continuously in any

single plant; they test occasionally at a plant or warehouse just as weights

and measures inspectors do at retail. They do not certify any lot or product with a seal. Because of these differences, the Task Force has decided to explore a for- mal model agreement between USDA and the States that would delineate,

for example:

each agency's jurisdiction

procedures to be followed in a plant inspection

appeal system

suitability of equipment

definition of the lot procedures for recall. At the June 11-13 meeting:

Representatives from the flour industry provided information regarding

the milling, packaging, and distribution of flour in the United States. In addition, they developed a mathematical model that fit actual data on

weight loss in flour taken by the Food and Drug Administration in the

early 1970s. Weight loss as large as 6% was found to occur under some circumstances.

Preliminary analysis of flour data from weights and measures jurisdic- tions was briefly reviewed.

The first draft of a memorandum of understanding between USDA and

State weights and measures agencies was reviewed and revised. The Task Force was supplied data from California and also identified the type of data that might already exist in USDA files that would

assist in determining the size of the "gray area" for red meat and

poultry if wet tare is used to check such packages.

The Task Force held a special meeting on Wednesday morning, July 17, 1985

to brief the membership on the status of Task Force progress and future

plans.

Two meetings are planned in the fall: September 25-27 and December 2-4, 1985. Plans for these meetings include: Determining if the industry-provided mathematical model fits the flour data provided by weights and measures officials. Determining the size of the "gray area" under given conditions for

testing packaged flour. Determining if existing data can be used to define the "gray area" for package checks using wet tare for red meat and poultry.

69
Executive Committee

Providing a policy and test procedure to be used by weights and measures agencies when inspecting packages of flour, red meat, or poultry.

Completing revision of a memorandum of understanding between the

USDA and the State weights and measures agencies. This memorandum

would be forwarded to the Executive Committee for review and a decision on recommendation to the membership for adoption.

Providing an administrative procedure to be used by the Conference to address other commodities susceptible to moisture loss.

70
APPENDIX C

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20899 CERTIFICATE NO

Page of (UtttxixtnU nf (Ennfnrmanre

For Weighing and Measuring Devices For

Accuracy Class:

Submitted by:

Standard Features and Options

This device was evaluated under the NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

(NTEP) and found to comply with the applicable technical requirements of NBS

HANDBOOK 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices". Evaluation results and device characteristics necessary for inspection and use in commerce are on the following pages. For further information, contact the National Bureau of Standards, address above, or telephone (301) 921-2401.

Date:

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

NOTE: The National Bureau of Standards does not "approve", "recommend", or "endorse" any proprietary product or material, either as a single item or as a class or group. Results shall not be used in advertising or sales promotion to indicate explicit or implicit endorsement of the product or material by the Bureau. (See NTEP Policies and Procedures).

71
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20899 CERTIFICATE NO.

Page of

For Weighing and Measuring Devices

For:

Accuracy ClassSubmitted by:

This device was evaluated under the NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

(NTEP) and found to comply with the applicable technical requirements of NBS

HANDBOOK 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices". Evaluation results and device characteristics necessary for inspection and use in commerce are on the following pages. For further information, contact the National Bureau of Standards, address above, or telephone (301) 921-2401.

Date:

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

NOTE: The National Bureau of Standards does not "approve", "recommend", or "endorse" any proprietary product or material, either as a single item or as a class or

group. Results shall not be used in advertising or sales promotion to indicate explicit or implicit endorsement of the product or material by the Bureau. (See NTEP Policies and Procedures). 72
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Edward Skluzaeek, Chairman

Director, Weights and Measures Division State of Minnesota

REFERENCE KEY

200 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Laws and Regulations submitted its Report to the 70th

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report contains the recommendations of the Committee

formed on the basis of written and oral comments received during the year. The report consists of the Interim Report as offered in the Conference

Announcement and as amended by Addendum Sheets developed during the

Annual Meeting.

After its component items were voted upon, or in some cases withdrawn,

the Report was adopted in its entirety by a hand vote of the membership.

The report consists primarily of proposals to revise or amend National Bureau of Standards Handbook 130, 1985 Edition, "Uniform Laws and

Regulations."

The following number sequence for the Reference Key Items was used to group items into categories:

This year's report did not contain any items in categories 203, 206, 207, or

209.

201

202

203 204

205

Handbook 130 - General

Uniform Weights and Measures Law

Uniform Weighmaster Law

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration

of Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices

Uniform Open Dating Regulation

Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation

Other Items

206

207

208 209

210

73
Committee on Laws and Regulations

Proposed revisions to Handbook 130 are shown in bold face print and by

crossing out what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added.

Entirely new sections to Handbook 130 are designated as such and are also shown in bold face print.

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT

Table A lists in numerical order all of the Reference Key Items contained in the Report.

The Reference Key numbers and titles of voting items are identified in bold

face print. All other items are informational only.

Individual Voting Item One item was presented for separate vote. 205-4 Proposed Section 1.7.1.1. Ice Cream and Frozen

Dessert Novelties

A motion was made to amend this item to propose the method

of sale of frozen dessert novelties by net weight. The vote to debate the proposed amendment was defeated (State

Representatives 17 Yea; 20 Nay: Delegates 39 Yea; 25 Nay). Item 205-4 as recommended by the Committee was then defeated

(State Representatives 35 Yea; 7 Nay: Delegates 34 Yea; 38 Nay).

See discussion of item for details. The defeat of this item results in no recommended method of

sale for this commodity.

Consent Calendar

Those voting items that were grouped into a "Consent Calendar" are

indicated by a "C" following the Reference Key Number (e.g., 202-1 C).

The Consent Calendar was adopted (State Representatives 46 Yea, 0 Nay:

Delegates 69 Yea; 0 Nay).

Withdrawn Items Two items, 202-3 and 204-3, were withdrawn as voting items from the

report. They are printed in the report for reference purposes only.

The Committee members were unanimously of the opinion that the recommended language changes that were proposed in its interim report are not improvements over what is presently recommended in Section 11.15. of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law and Section 12.1.2. of the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation. In the opinion of the Committee

members, the Supreme Court decision was based on the fact that California

did not allow for reasonable variations for moisture loss. In contrast, the

74
Committee on Laws and Regulations

NCWM recommendations in Handbook 130 do recognize moisture variations. The Committee believes that the question of how to deal fairly with

products undergoing moisture variations is being addressed by the Task Force

on Commodity Requirements.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference

Key No. Item Title

HANDBOOK 130 - GENERAL

Deletion of Certain Dates UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

Section 1.1. Weight(s) and (or) Measures)

Proposed Section 10. Requirements for Type Evaluation

Section 11.15. Use of the Term "Intrastate"

201-1

202-1 C

202-2 C

202-3

UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

204-1 C

204-2 C

204-3 UNIFORM I 205-1 C

Sections 6.5.(b), 6.6.(b), 7.4.(b), and 7.5.(b) - Add Reference

Temperatures for Alcoholic Beverages

Proposed Section 10.12. Variations From Declared Thickness of

Polyethylene Products

Section 12.1.2. Variations Resulting from Exposure

205-2 C

205-2 205-3 C

205-4

205-5 C

205-6 C

205-7

205-8

208-1 C

210-1 210-2

Section 1.3. Butter, Oleomargarine, and Margarine:

Margarine-like "Spreads"

(a) Section 1.5. Meat, Poultry, and Seafood

(b) Proposed Section 1.5.3. Clams, Mussels, and Oysters

Section 1.7.1. Prepackaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen

Products

Proposed Section 1.7.1.1. Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert

Novelties

Section 1.11. Sale of Meat by Carcass, Side, or Primal Cut

Section 2.19. Gasoline-Alcohol Blends

Proposed Section 2.20. Liquified Petroleum Gas

Proposed Section 2.21. Borax UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

Revision of the Uniform Open Dating Regulation

OTHER ITEMS

Cash/Credit Sales and Labeling of Motor Fuel Dispensers

Adoption of NBS Handbook 133

75
Committee on Laws and Regulations

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS FOLLOW IN NUMERICAL ORDER

REFERENCE

KEY

201-1 DELETION OF CERTAIN DATES

(This is an Information Item.)

There are several sections in Handbook 130 that refer to dates recommended

by the Conference for certain requirements to take effect (in the event

States should adopt the requirements prior to those dates.) These dates are now past and the Committee will delete them from the handbook. Even

though the deletions are editorial in nature, since the Conference took

action to establish these dates, the Committee members wish to inform the Conference of the deletions. They are: UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

6.1. GENERAL. — The metric and inch-pound systems of weights

and measures are recognized as proper systems to be used in the declaration of quantity. Units of both systems may be presented

in a dual declaration of quantity. Exeept where additional

exemption is otherwise provided herein? att metrie labeling

requirements alleeted by this 19?8 revision shall apply to labels*

(a> revised a#ter the e££eetive date e£ this regulation or (b> as

e#-July- 17-49 8 0y-whiehever-eeeurs-#irstr

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF

COMMODITIES

SECTION 1. FOOD PRODUCTS

1.1.(b) Metric Capacities - 250 milliliters, 500 milliliters, or 1 liter. {Efleetive-January-iT-iQSa)

1.2.(b) Metric Weights - 250 grams, 500 grams, 750 grams,

or a multiple of 500 grams. (E##eetive

January-ly-1982}

1.3.(b) Metric Weights - 125 grams, 250 grams, 500 grams,

or a multiple of 500 grams. (E#£eetive January I7 1982!

1.4.(b) Metric Weights - 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 25, or 50 kilograms.

(EHeetive-January- 17-1 98 2>

1.6.(b) Metric Volumes - 125 milliliters, 250 milliliters, 500

milliliters, 1 liter, or multiples of 1 liter (E#feetive

January-l7-1982>

1.7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS

Delete the parenthetical statement at the end of the subsection.

76
Committee on Laws and Regulations

1.9. PRICING OF BULK FOOD COMMODITIES. —Bulk

food commodities or food commodities not in package form and sold by weight shall be priced in terms of whole units of weight and not in common

or decimal fractions {E#leefctve -January- lyi 9

3.4. RAILROAD CAR TARE WEIGHTS

Delete Subsection 3.4.4. 202-1 SECTION 1.1. WKIGHT(S) AND (OR) MKASURE(S)

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

The New Jersey Superintendents Association and the Northeastern Weights

and Measures Association recommended that the definition of "weights and measures" in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law be changed to specifically define a scanner or point-of-sale system as under weights and measures jurisdiction.

Several northeastern State representatives said that they had enforcement

problems when a scanner or point-of-sale system was being used and when

the price marked on an item (or on the shelf) was not the same as the

price printed on the receipt. These officials believe that unless the law

specifically defines these devices as "weights and measures", they have no

jurisdiction over their function.

The Committee respectfully disagrees. The NCWM Uniform Weights and Measures Law already has a section that forbids the practice of a different

price on the retail shelf as compared with the price as provided by a

scanner. Section 15 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law reads: No person shall misrepresent the price of any commodity or service sold, offered, exposed, or advertised for sale by weight, measure, or count, nor represent the price in any manner

calculated or tending to mislead or in any way deceive a

person. This section (plus Section 14 forbidding misrepresentation of quantity), if enacted by a State, already provides enforcement authority over scanners and point-of-sale systems.

In addition, the Committee does not wish to set a precedent by listing by name the types of devices that might be considered weights and measures

devices. This might provide a potential "loop-hole" for those devices not

specifically listed. Finally, the Committee members want to point out that

it is the human element (the person reading in data or receiving price

updates) that introduces the discrepancies in shelf and receipt prices rather

than any inherent incapability of the reading device or scanner. Therefore, it is much more effective to forbid the practice of mispricing rather than

focus on a single device or apparatus as the means for obtaining

compliance.

Therefore, the Committee recommends that no change be made to the

definition of "weights and measures".

77
Committee on Laws and Regulations

202-2 PROPOSED SECTION 10. REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE

EVALUATION

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.)

In 1983, the NCWM added five new sections to the Uniform Weights and

Measures Law to permit adopting by reference the five regulations then

recommended by the Conference (Packaging and Labeling, Method of Sale,

Unit Pricing, Serviceperson Registration, and Open Dating). That same year

(but later in the voting session), the Conference also adopted the Uniform

Regulation for National Type Evaluation. The Committee believes this regulation should also be added to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law so that it too may be adopted by reference.

The Committee recommends the following section be added to the Uniform

Weights and Measures Law:

SECTION 10. REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE EVALUATION

The Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation as adopted

by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and

published in the National Bureau of Standards Handbook 130,

"Uniform Laws and Regulations" and supplements thereto or

revisions thereof, shall apply to type evaluation in the State,

except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation.

The footnote that accompanies Section 4 through 9 will be revised to

include this Section. It would read:

1 Sections 4 through 9 10 of the Uniform Weights and

Measures Law adopt NBS Handbook 44 and regulations in NBS

Handbook 130 by citation. In addition, these sections adopt

supplements to and revisions of Handbook 44 and the uniform

regulations "except insofar as modified or rejected by

regulation." Some States may not be able to lawfully enact a

statute providing for automatic adoption of future supplements

to or revisions of a regulation covered by that statute. If this

is determined to be the case in a given State, two alternatives are available:

(a) Section 4 through 9 10 may be enacted without

the phrase "...and supplements thereto or revisions

thereof..."

(b) Section 4 through 9 10 may be enacted by

replacing "...except insofar as modified or rejected

by regulation..." with the phrase "...as adopted, or amended and adopted, by rule of the director." Either alternative requires action on the part of the director to adopt a current version of Handbook 44 and each uniform

regulation each time a supplement is added or revision is made

by the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

78
Committee on Laws and Regulations

202-3 SECTION 11.15. USE OF THE TERM "INTRASTATE"

(This Item was carried over from the 69th NCWM, 1984,

in which it was Item 201-2.)

(This Item was withdrawn from the Committee's Report,

but is repeated below for reference.)

Section 11.15. of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law recognizes

reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture "only after the commodity has entered intrastate commerce."

This phrase is not part of the Federal regulations that also recognize such

variations. Thus, this section may be considered by some persons to be

inconsistent with Federal requirements. The Committee is agreed that there

should be no inconsistency between Federal requirements and NCWM

recommendations.

The Committee recommends the following revision to the Uniform Weights

and Measures Law to achieve the necessary consistency between Federal and

State requirements:

11.15. Allow reasonable variations from the stated quantity of contents, which shall include those caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by

unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice eniy alter the-eemmedrty-has-enteped-4ntfas4ate-eemmepeer

See Item 204-3 for recommended changes to the Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulation.

204-1 SECTIONS 6.5.(b), 6.6(b), 7.4(b), and 7.5.(b) — ADD REFERENCE

TEMPERATURES FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.)

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommends amendment of

these sections to include the reference temperatures for distilled spirits,

wine, and malt beverages as specified in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

and Firearms (Department of Treasury) regulations.

Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 7.10. defines a gallon

of 231 cubic inches for malt beverages at 39.1 °F (4 °C). Section 5.11. defines a liter for distilled spirits at 60 °F (15.56 °C). Section 4.10. defines

a liter for wine at 68 °F (20 °C).

The Committee recommends the following addition to Section 6.5(b)

(Sections 6.6.(b), 7.4.(b), and 7.5.(b) would be patterned accordingly):

(b) In units of liquid measure, shall be in terms of the U.S.

gallon of 231 cubic inches or liquid quart, liquid pint, or

fluid ounce subdivisions of the gallon, and shall express the

volume at 68 °F except in the case of petroleum products

and distilled spirits, for which the declaration shall express

79
Committee on Laws and Regulations

the volume at 60 °F, and except in the case of a commodity that is normally sold while frozen for which

the declaration shall express the volume at the frozen

temperature, and except in the case of a commodity that

is normally sold in the refrigerated state, for which the

declaration shall express the volume at 40 °F, and except

in the case of malt beverages, for which the declaration

shall express the volume at 39.1 W. The Committee wishes to point out that there are four sections that are being modified: inch-pound and metric sections for both consumer and non-consumer packages.

204-2 PROPOSED SECTION 10.12. VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED

THICKNESS OF POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS.

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.)

The Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities contains a

section on the methods of sale of consumer and nonconsumer polyethylene

products, whether sold from bulk or prepackaged. Packaged sheeting, film,

and certain types of bags must be labeled by thickness. Checking

prepackaged polyethylene products for compliance with the net quantity

declarations includes testing the thickness; the procedure for test is provided

in NBS Handbook 133. Similar to tests for labeled weight, length, etc., the average thickness (for a

lot, shipment, or delivery of a packaged polyethylene product) must equal or exceed the labeled thickness. Several measurements per package must be

made, however, in order to obtain an average thickness per package. Then

these individual package thicknesses are averaged in order to obtain the

average thickness for the lot, shipment, or delivery.

Industry trade practices have been incorporated into ASTM Standard

D-4397-84 "Specification for Polyethylene Sheeting for Construction,

Industrial and Agriculture Applications". This standard permits any individual thickness measurement of polyethylene to be as much as 20 percent below

the labeled thickness. This standard does not address how far the average

thickness of any single package might vary from the label. The first and

second editions of NBS Handbook 133 uses 7 percent as the amount for an

individual package to vary from the label. The Committee has been asked

to incorporate these figures into the Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation similar to the special variations for textiles and bark mulch.

This proposal is not a tolerance. The average thickness for the lot, shipment, or delivery must still equal or exceed the label. Just as test methods for packaged meat labeled "1 lb" would permit some packages to be

less than 1 lb as long as others in the same lot, shipment, or delivery

compensated for any short weight packages, the average principle applies to packaged polyethylene products too. These figures are special individual measurement and individual package variations. Since all other special

variations are referenced in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation,

it is appropriate that these variations also be cited.

80
Committee on Laws and Regulations

The Committee recommends the following new section:

10.12. VARIATIONS FROM DECLARED THICKNESS

Any individual thickness measurement of polyethylene sheeting,

film, or bag may be as much as 20 percent below the labeled

thickness (i.e., at least 80 percent of the labeled thickness).

The average thickness of a single package of polyethylene

sheeting, film, or bags may be as much as 7 percent below the

labeled thickness (i.e., at least 93 percent of the labeled

thickness).

1 ASTM Standard D-4397-84, "Specification for Polyethylene

Sheeting for Construction, Industrial and Agricultural

Applications", 1984. 204-3 SECTION 12.1.2. VARIATIONS RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE

(This Item was carried over from the 69th NCWM, 1984,

in which it was Item 201-2.)

(This Item was withdrawn from the Committee's Calendar

but is repeated below for reference.)

Section 12.1.2. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation permits

variations caused by exposure (also known as "moisture loss variation") "only

after the commodity is introduced into intrastate commerce..." A proviso in

this section defines the phrase "introduced into intrastate commerce."

This phrase is not part of Federal regulations that also recognize moisture

loss. Thus, this section may be considered by some to be inconsistent with

Federal requirements. The Committee is agreed that there should be no

inconsistency between Federal requirements and NCWM recommendations.

The Committee recommends the following revision of the Uniform Packaging

and Labeling Regulation:

12.1.2. VARIATIONS RESULTING FROM EXPOSURE. -

Variations from the declared weight or measure shall be

permitted when caused by ordinary and customary exposure to conditions that normally occur in good distribution practice and

that unavoidably result in change of weight or measure? but only

alter the eemmedity is introduced into intrastate eemmereer

Previdedy that the phrase "introduced into intrastate eemmeree"

as used in this paragraph shatt be construed to deline the time

and the piaee at which the first sale and delivery ©# a paekage

is-made-within-the-StateT-the-deiivery-being-eitherr

(a)—direetiy-to-the-purehaser-or-to-his-agentT-or

31
Committee on Laws and Regulations

(b> te a eemmen eamef £ep shipment te the pupehasepy and this paragraph shaii be eenstpued as pequiping that? se long as a shipment? eleiivepyy ep let e# paekages e# a particular eemmedity pemains in the pessessien ep undep the eentpei

el the paekagep ep the pepsen whe intpeduees the paekage

inte intpastate eemmepeey expesupe variations shatt net be

pepmittedr

There was some concern expressed by Conference members last year, that

deleting the above language from Section 12.1.2. would eliminate State power to take action on packaged goods susceptible to moisture loss by

tracing the product back to the point of entry into the State and checking

it there. It is the opinion of the Committee that this is a dubious

enforcement technique jtf the point of entry into the State is far removed in time from when the product was packaged. The Committee on Laws and

Regulations is encouraged with the progress of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements, specifically charged with resolving the moisture

loss issue. The Committee recommends that Conference members focus on

the Task Force's activities and provide feedback on their reports so that workable enforcement techniques can be developed for products subject to moisture loss. 205-1 SECTION 1.3. BUTTER, OLEOMARGARINE, AND MARGARINE:

MARGARINE-LIKE "SPREADS"

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.)

"Margarine" is specifically defined by Federal regulation as containing a minimum of 80 percent fat. There are products that look and taste like margarine, but are lower in fat than the required 80 percent. These

products are called "spreads" by the trade. They are packaged like many

margarines in plastic "tubs" or bowls and are displayed in supermarkets along

with margarine. "Spreads" are not "imitation margarines" because they are

not nutritionally inferior to margarine. Section 1.3. of the Uniform Method

of Sale Regulation applies only to butter and margarine, not to "spreads".

It has been recommended that Section 1.3. be broadened to include "spread".

The National Association of Margarine Manufacturers (NAMM) opposes this recommendation because they contend that there has as yet been no

confusing proliferation of "spread" package sizes. There are, however, both

12- and 24-oz packages in the market, and neither size would be permitted

if Section 1.3. did apply to "spreads". Some weights and measures officials contend that spread package sizes are confused with margarine packages

because the physical dimensions of 12-oz packages are fairly similar to margarine 1 lb packages. It could be argued that unit pricing has reduced

the need for package size limitations as provided in method of sale regulations. Unfortunately, unit pricing is not universal in any jurisdiction

and States perceive a continuing need for reducing the proliferation of package sizes especially in those products generally regarded as "staples" of

the home food budget - milk, bread, butter, and related commodities.

The NAMM also claims that the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

(FPLA) pre-empts the States from restricting package sizes because this Act

82
Committee on Laws and Regulations

gave authority to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to establish voluntary

package size standards. The Committee is advised that the FPLA does not pre-empt the States from regulation as long as such regulations are at least as stringent as and consistent with Federal requirements. It might be

argued that one reason package size standards have not been deemed

necessary at the Federal level is that the States are already effectively

controlling package size proliferation by their laws and regulations.

The Committee believes that 12- and 24-oz sizes of "spread" are already a

proliferation of sizes of a commodity that is practically identical in use, appearance, and taste to margarine. The Committee members agree that if there exists sufficient reason to retain package size limitations for butter and margarine, the limitations should also apply to "spreads".

Therefore, the Committee recommends that Section 1.3. be revised to

include "spreads":

1.3. BUTTER, OLEOMARGARINE, AND MARGARINE, AND

MARGARINE-LIKE SPREADS. — Shall be offered and exposed

for sale and sold by weight per subsection 1.3(a) or subsection

1.3(b).

(a) Inch-Pound Weights - 1/4 pound, 1/2 pound, 1 pound, or a

multiple of 1 pound.

(b) Metric Weights - 125 grams, 250 grams, 500 grams, or a

multiple of 500 grams.

"Margarine-like spreads" are those products that meet the

Federal Standard of Identity for margarine and oleomargarine

except that they contain less than 80 percent fat. 205-2(a) SECTION 1.5. MEAT, POULTRY, AND SEAFOOD

(This item was carried over from the 69th NCWM, 1984,

in which it was item 204-1)

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.) Last year, the Committee provided the Conference a draft of proposed

modifications to the Uniform Method of Sale Regulation that was intended

to:

1. Clarify the methods of sale for ready-to-eat food, whether

or not the food be composed of meat, poultry, or seafood,

2. Permit ready-to-eat chicken parts to be sold by count so

as to allow supermarkets and convenience stores to compete with "fast food carry-out" stores, and

3. Broaden the section on meat, poultry, and seafood to include fresh-water fish.
Committee on Laws and Regulations

Considering the entire issue as discussed last year, the proposed revisions to Section 1.5. are as follows:

1.5. MEAT, POULTRY, FISH, AND SEAFOOD1— Shall be sold by weight, except that shellfish the following? which may be

sold by weight, measure, and/or count*.

\U/ 9II"EXXX mBWTj

(b) items— sold*- forTMconsumption-on-theTM*prehiiscsj

(c) items sold as one of several elements comprising a ready to

eat meal sold as a unit for consumption elsewhere than on the

premises ft ncrc scnuj

{d)—items-sold-as-part-ef-a-sandwieh?

1.5.1. In Combination With Other Foods

When meat, poultry, fish, or seafood is combined

with some other food element to form a distinctive food product, the quantity representation may be in terms of the total weight of the product or combination, and a quantity representation need not be made for each element.

1.5.2. Stuffed Fish, Seafood, Poultry, or Meat

Products

In the case of ready-to-cook stuffed fish, seafood,

poultry, or meat products, the label must show the

total net weight of the stuffed product and the

minimum net weight of the fish, seafood, poultry, or meat in the product excluding the fish7 seafood,

poultry, or meat that may be part of the stuffing.

Add the following footnote:

1 See Section 1.12. for additional requirements for ready-to-eat

food. Add the following new section:

1.12. READY-TO-EAT FOOD. - The following may be sold by

weight, measure, or count:

(a) items sold for consumption on the premises;

(b) items sold as one of three or more different elements,

excluding condiments, comprising a ready-to-eat meal sold as a unit, for consumption elsewhere than on the

premises where sold;

84
Committee on Laws and Regulations

(c) ready-to-eat chicken parts cooked on the premises but

not packaged in advance of sale;

(d) sandwiches when offered or exposed for sale on the

premises where packed or produced and not intended for

resale. 205-2(b) PROPOSED SECTION 1.5.3. CLAMS, MUSSELS, AND OYSTERS

(This is an Information Item)

At the 1985 Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to add NCWM

guidelines adopted in 1983 on clams, mussels, and oysters (see item 207-3

from that year), to the method of sale of meat, poultry, fish, and seafood.

In its 1983 report, the Committee followed advice received by letter from

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA recommended the sale of whole clams, oysters, or mussels, in the shell by dry measure, or by count

and size. The Committee received quite a bit of comment by letter from

wholesalers, retailers, and buyers of whole shellfish. The majority of commenters favored the addition of weight or weight plus count as an

appropriate method of sale of whole clams, mussels, and oysters still in the

shell. The Committee decided to add these as methods of sale. Another problem encountered by weights and measures officials has been the

addition of water to fresh oysters out of the shell and sold by liquid

volume. The Committee has studied the requirements of several States and

of FDA, and recommendations from members of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. It appears feasible to set a limit of 15 percent free

liquid for fresh oysters, clams, and mussels removed from the shell and sold by fluid volume. This would require that a lot of one-quart (32 fl oz) jars of oysters, for example, when tested at retail contain on the average no more than 4.8 fl oz of liquid.

The Committee plans to add the following new subsection:

1.5.3. CLAMS, MUSSELS, AND OYSTERS

1.5.3.1. Processed or stuffed clams, mussels, or oysters on

the half shell shall be sold by net weight excluding the

weight of the shell. 1.5.3.2. Canned (heat-processed) mussels or oysters shall be sold by net weight. A maximum of 41 percent free

liquid by weight is permitted for canned oysters. Canned

clams shall be sold by drained weight.

1.5.3.3. Fresh oysters, clams, or mussels removed from

the shell and placed in a container shall be sold by fluid volume. A maximum of 15 percent free liquid by volume

is permitted.

1.5.3.4. Frozen oysters, clams, or mussels shall be sold by

net weight excluding the weight of the shell.

85
Committee on Laws and Regulations

1.5.3.5. Whole clams, oysters, or mussels in the shell (fresh or frozen) shall be sold by weight, dry measure (e.g., bushel), and/or count. Size designations along with the above measures are also appropriate.

The Committee would like to alert the industry that if a 15% free liquid

maximum for fresh oysters is not feasible, then a declaration on the package

of the amount of free liquid in the package is being considered. The

Committee will carry this item over for further study.

205-3 SECTION 1.7.1. PACKAGED ICE CREAM AND SIMILAR

FROZEN PRODUCTS.

(This Item was adopted as a part of the Consent Calendar.)

The current wording of this section might be interpreted as covering only

factory-packaged products, not hand-packed ice cream. The Committee

recommends the following revision so that hand-packed products are also required to be sold by fluid volume?

1.7.1. FACTORY PACKAGED AND HAND-PACKED PREPACKAGED ICE

CREAM AND SIMILAR FROZEN PRODUCTS. - Ice cream, ice

milk, frozen yogurt, and similar products shall be paekaged for

sale kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold in terms of fluid measure volume.

205-4 PROPOSED SECTION 1.7.1.1. ICE CREAM AND FROZEN

DESSERT NOVELTIES

(This Item was carried over from the 69th NCWM, 1984,

in which it was Item 204-2.)

(A motion was made to amend this item to propose the

method of sale of frozen dessert novelties by net weight.

The vote to debate the motion was defeated. The item as

originally reported by the Committee was then defeated.)

Products such as prepackaged ice cream sandwiches, chocolate-coated

ice-milk cones rolled in nuts or cookie crumbs, frozen coated sherbet or yogurt pops are presently labeled with separate declarations for the

ice-cream or ice-cream-like portion (fluid volume) and for the cookie and

other coatings (count "two cookies" - or declaration of presence - "plus

chocolate coating"). Last year, the Committee was informed that it was

not possible to obtain repeatable results when the ice cream was separated

from the other ingredients in order to determine the fluid volume of the ice cream portion.

There exists a long-standing consumer usage and trade custom of selling ice cream by fluid volume. Most States have regulations requiring ice cream to be sold by fluid volume. When other ingredients such as cookies or coatings are closely associated with the ice cream in frozen novelty desserts,

questions arise of (1) proper labeling of these other ingredients, and (2) how

86
Committee on Laws and Regulations

to test such products for compliance. Many weights and measures officials would like to see a net weight rather than fluid volume declaration on such

packages. The Committee, however, is not persuaded that net weight should

be required merely for the convenience of the inspector for checking

purposes. Although this approach would simplify testing the product, it would not do much to inform the consumer: a 3 fl oz ice cream sandwich

can vary in weight from 2.3 to 2.6 oz for a single manufacturer, and a 3 fl oz sandwich might average 1.75 oz in weight, whereas a 3 fl oz fruit pop,

identical in size, might weigh 3.3 oz. The International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers has worked closely

with Weights and Measures officials and the NCWM to address this issue and

has proposed a different approach. These frozen desserts can be labeled by

total fluid volume. Such declarations more nearly correspond to quantity

declarations consumers use in value comparison -the serving size - and, in addition, can be tested by weights and measures officials. The test would require the determination of the total fluid volume displaced

by a frozen dessert novelty. The product volume, together with the product

weight, could be used to check frozen novelties by weight, similar to the

method used to test milk by weight. Recent studies of the test procedure

by the State of West Virginia have shown that a volume displacement

method using ice water (rather than kerosene) works very well. The Committee members believe that a test method is now available that makes testing these products by weight feasible even if they are labeled by

total volume. Therefore, the Committee recommends a method of sale by

total fluid volume and incorporation of the test method below in subsequent

editions of NBS Handbook 133. The proposed addition to the Uniform Method of Sale of Commodities

Regulation is:1.7.1.1. ICE CREAM AND FROZEN DESSERT NOVELTIES

Frozen dessert novelties containing ice cream, ice milk, frozen

yogurt, sherbets, ices, and similar products shall be kept,

offered, exposed for sale, or sold by total fluid volume.

The test method for such products is proposed as follows:

(This method was provided by Mr. Karl Angell, Jr., West Virginia Weights

and Measures.)

Equipment

Displacement Jar - This is a container large enough to hold ice cream

novelty submerged in ice water, for example 12 in high, 6 in diameter, with

overflow tube attached to jar one to two inches from top edge at a

, downward angle of about 45°. This container will have to be constructed of

glass or metal.

4-fl oz graduated cylinder - to measure the displaced volume of the novelty

87
Committee on Laws and Regulations

Thermometer - to read the ice water temperature

Package checking scale - to weigh the novelty

Foam box - large enough to hold displacement jar and some ice around the

jar

Stop watch - to time the test Mesh scoop - to remove any material from the water between tests Holder - to hold novelty being tested in the ice water to avoid movement

Freezer or ice chest with dry ice - to keep novelty at -10 °F. Holder

- Graduate

Displacement Jar

1/4" paneling

aluminum or steel angle

Holder

88
Committee on Laws and Regulations

1. Keep novelties as cold as possible prior to test (-10 + 2 °F)

2. As quickly as possible, gross weigh two novelty items from the same lot and return to the freezer.

3. Place displacement jar in foam box and pack it in ice. Add ice water (maintained at 33 °F) to jar until overflow occurs, very

slowly adding the water as the water level approaches overflow

tube.

4. Using stopwatch, determine when 10 seconds pass between drips

from the overflow tube. The displacement jar is now ready to

use. Place empty graduate at overflow tube.

5. Take first novelty from freezer, unwrap and fit into holding

device. A wire may be needed to attach a sandwich or cone to the holder. Slowly submerge novelty into ice water.

6. Using stopwatch, when ten seconds pass between drips, read

graduate volume. This is the total volume of the piece.

7. Weigh all wrappers, sticks, etc. as tare. Subtract tare weight

from gross weight to determine net weight.

weight of labeled = actual piece net weight (step 7) x labeled volume

volume displaced volume (step 6)

8. Test two pieces from the inspection lot to determine the average

weight of the labeled volume.

9. Use this average weight plus the average tare weight as the weight to check against the other novelties in this lot. No

further volume displacement determinations should be needed. (Do

note, however, that mixed fruit flavors may weigh differently so that different weights must be determined for different flavors.)

205-5 SECTION 1.11. SALE OF MEAT BY CARCASS, SIDE, OR

PRIMAL CUT

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.)

The Southern Weights and Measures Association has proposed a revision of Section 1.11. to provide better safeguards to the purchaser of meat from

bulk. The existing requirements have been modified to help purchasers

understand more explicitly the value of what they are buying, to help

weights and measures officials verify the purchase, and to indicate that there must be two documents: (1) a contract prior to delivery (with the usual right of contract cancellation) and (2) a delivery receipt. The

American Association of Meat Processors (representing 1700 companies) has

endorsed the proposal. The Committee recommends the following revision:

89
Committee on Laws and Regulations

1.11. SALE OF MEAT BY CARCASS, SIDE, OR PRIMAL CUT.—

At the time el delivery el bulk meat te the purchaser? tThe

seller of a carcass, side, quarter, or primal cut on a hanging

weight basis shall provide to the buyer a written statement

giving the following information at the times indicated:

1.11.1. PRIOR TO DELIVERY

(a) The name and address of the seller (firm).

(b) The date of the sale contract.

(c) The name and address of the purchaser buyer.

(d) <g> The total (hanging) weight of the carcass,

side, or primal cut prior to cutting or processing.The identity in the meet deeriptive

Ed nio Cviniiici cnmj pracRcamci

(e) The USDA quality grade and yield grade of the

meat to be supplied if so represented.

(f) The price per pound for each species (not

including any inducements)" before cutting and

wrapping and the total price of the sale order.

(h) The total net weight el the eut and processed

meat-delivered-te-the-pttrehaserT

(g) The estimated cutting loss on the order in terms of percentage and weight (e.g., "40 percent,

160 lb")

(h) <i> A list by name and estimated count of each

afi cut delivered to be derived from each primal

source. G) (j) An itemised list el any and all eharges ever and above the original sale price el the eareass?

side? or primal eut* Additional costs, listed separately, for cutting, wrapping, freezing, and

finance charges, if any; and

(j) That the buyer may keep the cutting loss.

90
Committee on Laws and Regulations

1.11.2. AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY

(a) The name and address of the buyer and seller.

(b) The date of delivery.

(c) The total net weight of the meat delivered.

(d) A list, by name and count, of each cut derived

from each primal cut; and

(e) (k) A separate indication of the quantity of any

meat or other commodity^) received by the

purchaser as an inducement in connection with the

purchase of the carcass, side, or primal cut.

1.11.3. EXEMPTIONS. — Section 1.11. shall not apply to the sale of any carcass, side, quarter, or primal cut of meat that individually or collectively

has a hanging weight of fifty pounds or less. 1.11.4. RIGHT OF CANCELLATION. — The buyer

shall have the right to cancel any carcass, side,

quarter, or primal cut meat contract until midnight

or the third business day after the day on which

the buyer executed the contract or after the day

on which the seller provided the buyer with a fully

executed copy of the contract, whichever is later. 205-6 SECTION 2.19. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDS

(This Item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.) Last year, the NCWM adopted a new section on gasoline-alcohol blends

requiring disclosure on the dispenser of the presence (but not the amount) of methanol or ethanol in gasoline. This section also would require

documentation so that anyone in the marketing chain would know of the presence and amount of any oxygenate. This is important information, not

only for retailers, who must announce on the pump the presence of ethanol

or methanol, but also for blenders, who must know of the presence and

amount of any oxygenate in the fuel before blending.

Based on discussions during the Interim Meeting with representatives of the

oil industry and with the Task Force on Motor Fuels, the Committee

believes that some modifications are needed to this section. Much of the gasoline transferred through the Nation's pipelines may already

contain significant amounts of oxygenates (but not ethanol or methanol).

These other oxygenates have a long history of successful blending into gasoline and shipping through the pipelines. As Subsection 2.19.2. is now

worded, it would be necessary for each marketer in the wholesale

distribution chain to determine the amount and presence of these other

91
Committee on Laws and Regulations

oxygenates in order to provide the documentation required in wholesale

transactions. This would be an unnecessary burden for any marketer without

ethanol or methanol in his gasoline and no plans to blend ethanol or methanol into it. The Committee members believe that it should be the responsibility of the person who plans to blend ethanol or methanol into gasoline to specify when

purchasing, or determine after receiving, whether the base gasoline permits

ethanol or methanol to be added.

The Committee encourages declaration of the maximum amount of ethanol,

methanol, or combination (by such words as "not more than % by volume")

either voluntarily by gasoline marketers or by regulation in those few States

that have the capability to enforce such requirements.

However, the Committee has recommended and continues to support minimum

dispenser labeling requirements, so that at least the presence of ethanol or methanol should be disclosed.

In light of these minimum labeling requirements, the Committee recommends

no change to Section 2.19.1., and the following revision to Section 2.19.2.: 2.19.2. DOCUMENTATION m WHOLESALE

TRANSACTIONS* FOR PUMP LABELING

PURPOSES. The retailer must be provided at the

time of delivery of fuel, on the invoice, bill of

lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, the

presence and maximum amount of oxygenates

ethanol, methanol, or any combination of

ethanol/methanol (in terms of percent by weight

volume) contained in the fuel. Provide that the term

"oxygenates* means any oxygen-eontanmg compound

(sueh as an alcohol of an ether)* This

documentation is only for pump labeling purposes;

it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total oxygencontent of the motor

fuel before blending.

205-7 PROPOSED SECTION 2.20. LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS

(This is an Information Item.)

A symposium on temperature compensation for petroleum products was held

after the voting session of the 69th NCWM on August 2, 1984. A

questionnaire was circulated at the conclusion of that seminar. Only

nineteen responses were received. Because of the poor response level, the

Committee does not believe that the results of the questionnaire can be

used to guide it in other than very general terms towards recommendations

for the NCWM. The Committee does believe, however, that there is some

indication that the Conference membership would agree that a reference

temperature does need to be specified in law or regulation for the volume

measurement of LP gass

92
Committee on Laws and Regulations

Its volume is much more susceptible to change with temperature

than other liquid petroleum products.

It is routinely sold in many jurisdictions on a temperature

compensated basis at the present time.

The Committee was planning to recommend the following new section:

2.20. LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS - All LP gas shall be kept,

offered, exposed for sale, or sold in terms of the gallon defined

as 231 cubic inches at 60 °F except for unit sales directly to mobile fuel tanks of less than 100 gallons. All retail sales shall be accomplished by use of a meter that automatically

compensates for temperature. Because of all the information supplied and questions raised from various

regulatory jurisdictions and industry about the method of sale of LP gas, the

Committee feels that further study is needed.

The Committee wants to reaffirm its position that LP gas should be sold on

a temperature-compensated basis. However, the Committee recommends that

this item should be carried over. On the subject of LP gas, the Southern Weights and Measures Association

requested assistance in determining the source of discrepancies between

retail and wholesale receipts found by several LP gas retailers in the

central States. During the Interim Meeting, the Committee heard from

representatives of the Gas Processors Association, National LP-Gas

Association, American Petroleum Institute, a meter manufacturer, and a recorded message from a midwest retailer. Temperature compensated LP gas meters are adjusted to automatically compensate for an LP gas of a given

specific gravity. As the LP gas, which is a mixture of propane and other

easily liquifiable hydrocarbons, varies farther from the specific gravity for which the meter is set, the errors of volume measurement increase. The

National LP-Gas Association, together with the other trade associations

present at the Interim Meetings, agreed to conduct a meeting in April, 1985,

with retailers, weights and measures officials, and meter manufacturer

representatives to determine the source or sources and magnitude of the

discrepancies, their economic impact, and potential solution. The National

LP-Gas Association reported the status of this issue in a letter to the

Committee in July 1985. The Committee will continue to monitor the

progress of this issue and will study the need to post the specific gravity of LP gas at its next Interim Meeting.

205-8 PROPOSED SECTION 2.21. BORAX

(This is an Information Item.)

Consumer laundry additives consisting of borax are presently labeled by

weight. Borax is somewhat unusual in that it can lose more than 23 percent of its weight due to moisture loss but loses neither its laundry

additive properties nor its volume.

93
Committee on Laws and Regulations

Moisture loss is permitted by Federal and State regulations, but the amount

of weight loss can be extreme for predominantly borax products.

Representatives from the U.S. Borax and Chemical Corporation have worked

with the Liaison Committee and the State of West Virginia to develop a compliance testing method that depends on volume rather than weight.

The Committee on Laws and Regulations met with U.S. Borax representatives and Mr. Earl Johnson of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to resolve the issue of appropriate net contents labeling. It is the opinion of the Committee that: The consumer uses the product by "cupfuls" (by volume)

The consumer will not be thwarted in value comparisons if this product is labeled by volume when other products are labeled by

weight. Other laundry products, for example softeners, are

labeled by weight, volume, or sheet count and do not appear to confuse the purchaser.

It is the opinion of the Committee that products containing predominantly

borax should be labeled by volume. This opinion and a request for FTC's

response prior to the Annual Meeting has been transmitted to the Federal

Trade Commission.

The Committee was planning to recommend the following new section:

2.21. BORAX. — Consumer products composed predominantly

(greater than 50%) of borax shall be kept, offered, exposed for

sale, or sold by volume in cubic inches or milliliters. This item will be carried over for further study and information since the

Federal Trade Commission has indicated it cannot support the Committee's

recommendation for the labeling of borax by volume.

208-1 REVISION OF THE UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

(This item was carried over from the 69th NCWM, 1984,

in which it was Item 206.)

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar.) Dr. Edward Heffron, Chief of the Food Division for the Michigan

Department of Agriculture, while he was chairman of the Committee on Laws and Regulations for the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), proposed to the NCWM that the Uniform Open Dating Regulation be

reviewed in light of AFDO's "Uniform State Open Dating Bill." A single

recommendation from both organizations would lead to greater uniformity

when States or local jurisdictions look for guidance on proposed regulatory

standards to adopt. Last year, the NCWM Committee on Laws and

Regulations published as part of its report a proposed revision to the NCWM

Uniform Open Dating Regulation, and transmitted that proposal to AFDO in order to resolve any differences.

94
Committee on Laws and Regulations

The Committee believes these differences have been resolved and is prepared

to now propose the revised regulation to the Conference. AFDO adopted

the revised regulation in June 1985. One very significant change is being proposed that should go far towards

making the regulation useful to States and jurisdictions that have not yet

regulated in this area: One of two versions would require open dating on

perishable foods. The other version would give the option of voluntarily

open dathg such foods provided that the open dating conforms to the uniform regulation. Therefore, note that Sections 1.1., and 3.1. are footnoted

to indicate the alternative wording for the Uniform Open Dating "Voluntary"

Regulation.

Hie proposed revision is as follows: UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION*

SECTION 1. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPLICATION

1.1. PURPOSE.* The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe

mandatory uniform date labeling of prepackaged, perishable

foods. Open dating is intended for use and understanding by

both distributors and consumers when judging food qualities.

1.2. SCOPE AND APPLICATION. This regulation prescribes the manner of date labeling, the method of determining the

appropriate date, required records, responsible persons, and the

foods subject to this regulation. This regulation provides for the

permissible sale of a regulated food after the expiration of the

date on the label. This regulation does not apply to any food

that is not prepackaged or is exempted by Section 8. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS

2J.. rtSELL BY* DATE. — n •Sell by1 date" means a recommended

last date of sale that permits a subsequent period before

deterioration of qualities described in 2.2., 2.3., and 2.4.

* Alternatively, this regulation may be adopted to require uniformity of

open dating perishable foods whenever a packager voluntarily elects to use

date labeling. In such instance, Section 1.1. is to be reworded in the

following manner:

1.1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe uniform

date labeling that must be used whenever a packager elects to use date labeling of prepackaged foods. Open date labeling is intended for use and understanding by both distributors and

consumers when judging food qualities.

95
Committee on Laws and Regulations

2.2. PERISHABLE FOOD. — "Perishable food" means any food having a

significant risk of spoilage, loss of value, or loss of palatability

within 60 days of the date of packaging.

2.3. SEMI-PERISHABLE FOOD. — "Semi-perishable food" means any

food having a significant risk of spoilage, loss of value, or loss of palatability during the period 60 days to 6 months after the

date of packaging.

2.4. LONG SHELF-LIFE FOOD. — "Long shelf-life food" means any

food in which a significant risk of spoilage, loss of value, or loss of palatability would not occur sooner than 6 months after the

date of packaging including foods preserved by freezing,

dehydrating, or being in a hermetically sealed container.

2.5. PREPACKAGED. — "Prepackaged" means packaged prior to being

displayed or offered for retail sale.

2.6. "BEST IF USED BY" DATE. — "Best if used by" date means a

date prior to deterioration of qualities described in 2.3. and 2.4.

2.7. PERSON. — "Person" means an individual, partnership,

association, or corporation.

SECTION 3. SALE OF PERISHABLE FOOD AND DATE DETERMINATION.

3.1. "SELL BY" DATE.* — A retail food establishment shall not sell or

offer for sale a prepackaged perishable food unless it is identified with a "sell by" date as prescribed by this regulation.

3.2. SALE AFTER EXPIRATION OF "SELL BY" DATE. —

3.2.1. ADVERTISEMENT. - Perishable food shall not be

offered for sale after the "sell by" date unless it is wholesome and advertised in a conspicuous manner as being offered for sale after the

recommended last date of sale. The placement of a sign, sticker, or tag is acceptable for such

advertising if it is easily readable and clearly

identifies the perishable food as having passed the

recommended last date of sale.

* Alternatively, this regulation may be adopted to require uniformity of

open dating perishable foods whenever a packager voluntarily elects to use date labeling. In such instance, Section 3.1. is to be reworded in the

following manner:

3.1. "SELL BY" DATE. If a retail food establishment elects to sell or offer for sale a prepackaged perishable food identified with a

"sell by" date, the "sell by" date used must be as prescribed by

this regulation.

96
Committee on Laws and Regulations

3.2.2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADVERTISEMENT. — The

retailer or final seller is responsible for the

advertisement, described in 3.2.1., of a perishable

food offered for sale after the recommended last date of sale.

3.3. DETERMINATION OF "SELL BY" DATE. -

3.3.1. REASONABLE PERIOD FOR CONSUMPTION. — A

manufacturer, processor, packer, repacker, retailer, or other person who prepackages perishable food,

shall determine a date that allows a reasonable

period after sale, for consumption of the food,

without physical spoilage, loss of value, or loss of

palatabOity. A reasonable period for consumption

shall consist of at least one third of the

approximate total shelf life of the perishable food.

3.3.2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR "SELL BY" DATE. — A

retailer who purchases prepackaged perishable food

may upon written agreement with the person prepackaging such food determine, identify, and be

responsible for the sell by date placed on or attached to each package of such food.

3.4. MANNER OF EXPRESSING DATE. —

3.4.1. MONTH AND DAY, OR DAY OF WEEK. — A

person described in section 3.3.1. or 3.3.2. shall place or attach to each package of perishable food a date by month and day. However, bakery

products with a shelf-life of not more than 7 days

may be dated with the day of the week

representing the last recommended day of sale.

3.4.2. THE TERM "SELL BY". — The "sell by" date shall be displayed with the term "sell by" or words of

similar import immediately preceding or immediately over the designated date unless a prominent notice is on the label describing the

date as a "sell by" date and indicating the location

of the date.

3.4.3. ABBREVIATION OF WEEKDAY. — If the day of

the week is solely designated as provided in section

3.4.1., the name of the day may be abbreviated by

the use of either the first two or first three letters of the name of the day.

3.4.4. EXPRESSION OF MONTH AND DAY. — Except as provided for in section 3.4.1,, the date shall be

designated by the first three letters of the month

followed by a numeral indicating the calendar day

or designated by the month represented numerically

97
Committee on Laws and Regulations

followed by a numeral designation of the calendar

day. The month and day designation shall be

separated by a period, slash, dash, or spacing.

When a numeral designation of the first nine days

of the month is used, the number shall include a

zero as the first digit; for example, 01 or 03.

3.4.5. EXPRESSION OF THE YEAR. — Hie "sell by" date

may include the year following the day if such

year is expressed as a two or four digit number

separated as described in section 3.4.4. SECTION 4. SALE OF SEMI-PERISHABLE AND LONG SHELF-LIFE FOOD.

4.1. "BEST IF USED BY" DATE. — A manufacturer, processor, packer, repacker, or other person who prepackages semiperishable or long shelf-life food may place upon or attach to the package an open date providing it is designated by the ''best

if used by" date.

4.2. SALE AFTER EXPIRATION OF "BEST IF USED BY" DATE. —

A retail food establishment may sell or offer for sale food

beyond the designated "best if used by" date providing the food

is wholesome and the sensory physical quality standards for that

food have not significantly diminished.

4.3. MANNER OF EXPRESSING DATE. — The "best if used by" date

as required by section 4.1. shall be placed upon or attached to each container or package and be limited to the terms "best if used by" or words of similar import followed by or immediately

over the date designated by the month and year unless a prominent notice is on the label describing the date as a "best if used by" date and indicating the location of the date. Hie date

shall be designated by the first three letters of the month

followed by a numeral indicating the year. The use of the day

of the month is permissible providing the day of the month is placed prior to the month; for example, 30 Jun 81. SECTION 5. PLACEMENT OF THE DATE

The date, whether a "sell by" or "best if used by," shall be printed,

stamped, embossed, perforated, or otherwise shown on the package, or on a

tag attached to the package in a manner that is easily readable and

separate from other information, graphics, or lettering so as to be clearly

visible to a prospective purchaser. The date shall not be superimposed on

other required information or obscured by other information, graphics, or

pricing. Regardless of the type size used, the date shall be easily

readable. These requirements do not preclude a supplemental notice

elsewhere on a package describing and/or indicating the location of the

date.

98
Committee on Laws and Regulations

SECTION 6. FACTORS FOR THE DATE DETERMINATION

A person who, as provided for in this regulation, places either the "sell by"

date or "best if used by" date shall determine the date taking into consideration the food quality, characteristics, formulation, processing

impact, packaging or container and other protective wrapping or coating,

customary transportation, and storage and display conditions. For purposes

of calculating this date, home storage conditions shall be considered similar to the usual retail store except that refrigerated food may be calculated

using a home storage temperature standard of 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4.4 degrees Celsius).

SECTION 7. RECORDS

A person responsible for establishing the date for perishable,

semi-perishable, and long shelf-life food shall keep a record of the method

used for the determination of that date. A record revision is necessary whenever a factor affecting date determination is altered. Such record shall be retained for not less than 6 months after the most recent "sell by" or

"best if used by" date and be available during normal business hours for examination upon request by (insert agency name).

SECTION 8. EXEMPTIONS

8.1. This regulation does not apply to perishable fruits or vegetables

in a container permitting sensory examination.

8.2. This regulation does not apply to prepackaged perishable foods

open dated according to requirements of Federal law or

regulation.

•ECTION 9. PRE-EMPTION OF LOCAL, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

A municipality or county shall not adopt or impose standards or requirements other than those provided for in this regulation.

SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE

TWs regulation shall become effective on and after (insert appropriate

date).

(END OF OPEN DATING REGULATION)

99
Committee on Laws and Regulations

210-1 CASH/CREDIT SALES AND LABELING OF MOTOR FUEL

DISPENSERS

(This is an information Item.)

Since the prohibition against surcharges for the use of credit cards expired

in 1984, the Committee decided to revisit the issue of cash discount price

posting. Individual weights and measures officials have discussed the advantages of changing pump computers that can't compute both cash and

credit from being set on the higher (credit) price to being set on the lower

(cash) price in order to make sure "discounts" are never accidentally or

deliberately forgotten. In contrast, the Southern Weights and Measures

Association recommended that a new section be added to the Uniform

Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities requiring dispensers to be

set on the highest (credit card) price when the dispensers cannot compute

both cash and credit card prices. The Association also recommended that cash discount information be displayed on the dispenser itself. The

committee has reviewed the guidelines adopted by the Conference in 1982

and clarified in 1983. These guidelines are still applicable to motor fuel cash/credit marketing today. However, the Committee believes that the

guidelines should remain "guidelines". The Committee's reasons are as

follows: o It is a national practice to set the dispensers at the credit card

price. The Committee cannot see a consensus for changing this practice, although the practice has significant shortcomings. o Congress may still vote to reinstate the ban on credit card

surcharges. o There is no other common commodity being marketed today with an "add-on price" for credit card use (although this may change in the future).

The Committee believes that there is merit in reprinting the cash/credit

guidelines below.

It is important that enforcement agencies overseeing such marketing

practices: o check advertising when testing motor fuel dispensers, and

o do undercover buying to determine if the refund is given as promised.

100
Committee on Laws and Regulations

POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON MOTOR FUEL

DELIVERIES (GAS PUMP) PRICE POSTING

RELATING TO CASH DISCOUNTS

Discounting for cash transactions is a management decision of the

merchandiser. Those merchants who elect to offer cash discounts on motor

fuel must comply not only with the Federal Cash Discount Act, but also with the State and local weights and measures laws and regulations. All such

laws are intended to prohibit deceptive, misleading, or misrepresentative

information to the consumer. The following guidelines are intended to apply

to price advertising or posting at the streetside or highway, as well as at the pump, and to the price computed at the dispenser. These guidelines are

applicable to other discount offers (such as combination purchases of car wash and gas, for example).

1. If a price is posted or advertised, it must be available to all qualified customers. If any condition or qualification is required

to obtain the posted price, that condition must also be posted

clearly and understandably in conjunction with the price wherever

it is posted.

2. The cash price may be disclosed on the posted or advertising

sign by itself as long as the sign clearly indicates that the price

is limited to cash purchases and as long as State requirements do

not prohibit it.

3. If the merchandiser elects to establish separate pumps or islands for credit card and for cash sales, the pumps or islands shall be

clearly identified as "cash" or "credit" to avoid customer

confusion.

4. If the merchandiser wishes to offer cash discounts off the credit card price as well as permit credit card sales from a single

dispenser not capable of multi-price-computing, the pump shall be

set at the higher price and a chart expressed in terms of both

the total quantity delivered and the total cash discount

applicable (in 1 cent increments) shall be prominently displayed

so as to be easily read by the customer at the time of purchase. However, this practice shall have only "interim"

status.

5. In order to permit cash and credit card sales from a single

dispenser with the minimum amount of customer confusion, the

NCWM should adopt a plan and timetable for changeover to devices that can compute and display final money values for either cash or credit card transactions.

(END OF GUIDELINES)

101
Committee on Laws and Regulations

210-2 ADOPTION OF NBS HANDBOOK 133

(This item was carrried over from the 69th NCWM, 1984,

in which it was Item 207-1.)

(This is an Information Item.)

The Second Edition of NBS Handbook 133 has been published and distributed

to all NCWM members. The Committee heard a report by the

Subcommittee on Commodity Standards, chaired by Mr. Don Stagg, at the

Interim Meeting and feels confident that the Conference should move ahead

to adopt Handbook 133 as its own and manage the revision and updating of

this document within the Conference Committee structure. Therefore, the

Committee on Laws and Regulations endorses action being recommended by

the Executive Committee to adopt Handbook 133. See Item 104-6 of the

Executive Committee Report.

The Committee would like to acknowledge the special assistance provided by

Mr. A. J. Farrar, NBS Legal Advisor.

E.P. Skluzacek, Minnesota, Chairman

T.F. Brink, Vermont

L. Letey, Colorado

A.M. Nelson, Connecticut

D.E. Stagg, Alabama

C.S. Brickenkamp, NBS, Technical Advisor

THE COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

102
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Darrell A. Guensler, Chairman

Acting Director, Division of Measurement Standards

State of California

REFERENCE KEY

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submitted its Report to the 70th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report consisted of the Interim Report as offered

in the Conference Announcement and as amended by Addendum Sheets

developed during the Annual Meeting.

The report contains the recommendations of the Committee formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received during the year. After its individual items were adopted, or in some cases revised or withdrawn, the Report was adopted in its entirety by a hand vote of the membership

All references are to National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44,

"Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices."

Table A lists in numerical order all of the items contained in the

report.

The Reference Key numbers and titles of voting items are identified

in bold face print. All other items are informational only.

Those voting items which were grouped into a "Consent Calendar are

indicated by a "C" following the Reference Key Number (e.g., 302-2

C). At the request of the House of State Representatives, one of

the 17 items placed on the Consent Calendar, 301-1, was removed

and voted on as a separate item. The Consent Calendar was

adopted by unanimous vote. Table B summarizes the voting results for items voted on

individually.

103
Specifications and Tolerances

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference SECTION OF CODE

Key No. Title of Item SECTION 1.14. GENERAL CODE

301-1 G-S.1. Identification

301-2 C The Indication of Zero on Digital Indicating Elements.

301-3 C Provision for Sealing Adjustable Components.

301-4 A Mechanism or Technology Referenced.

SECTION 2.20. SCALES CODE

302-1 S.l.8.3. Customer's Indications.

302-2 C S.2.3. Tare. 302-3 S.6.6. Marking Requirements/Prepackaging Scales. 302-4 C N.1.3. Shift Test. 302-5 C UR.2.5. Access to Pit. 302-6 C Value of the Scale Division, Indicated and Recorded.

302-7 C Definitions.

302-8 Application of Requirements to Field Examinations or to Type Evaluation.

302-9 Impact of Influence Factors. 302-10 S.6. Marking Requirements.

302-11 S.6.1. Marking Requirements/Accuracy Class. 302-12 T.N.8. Influence Factors. 302-13 UR.1.1. Selection Requirements/General - Table 7. 302-14 Other Less Substantive or Editorial Changes

302-15 Weighing-in-Motion Task Force. 302-16 Report of the National Type Evaluation Technical

Committee, Scales and Weighing Systems Sector. SECTION 2.21. BELT CONVEYOR SCALES CODE

303-1 Code Revision

SECTION 2.22. AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS FOR GRAIN CODE

304-1 Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS).

304-2 C Impact of New Scales Code Format and Tolerances.

304-3 Application of Code to All Systems.

SECTION 2.23. WEIGHTS CODE

305-1 C T. Tolerances, Table 1.

104
Specifications and Tolerances

Table 1, continued

SECTION 3.30. LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES CODE

Agreement Between Indications

Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems

S.2.5. Zero-Set Back Interlock

Sec. 3 All Codes Dealing with Liquid-Measuring Devices.

Report of the National Type Evaluation Technical

Committee, Meters and Measuring Sector SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE TANK METERS CODE

Split Compartment Tests Agri-Chemical Meters

Field Standards

SECTION 4.43. FARM MILK TANKS CODE

S.3. Design of Indicating Means

Definitions

SECTION 5.54. TAXIMETERS CODE

UR.2. Position and Illumination of A Taximeter

Type Evaluation Criteria for Taximeters

Table B

VOTING RESULTS

Reference House of State House of

Key No. Representatives Delegates

Yes No Yes No

301-1 35 7 46 31 302-1 36 5 44 23 302-3 45 0 78 0 302-9 45 0 60 2 302-10 37 7 64 7 302-13 Original 32 11 30 41 Anended 43 0 67 2 302-14 44 0 70 0 302-16 44 0 70 0 303-1 43 0 69 0 306-5 43 0 70 0 307-2 36 7 60 6

306-1 C

306-2 C

306-3 C

306-4

306-5

307-1

307-2

307-3

308-1 C

308-2 C

309-1 C

309-2 C

105
Specifications and Tolerances

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS FOLLOW IN NUMERICAL ORDER

Handbook paragraphs to be added or completely revised are so identified. Partial changes to paragraphs are shown as follows: wording to be

deleted is shown lined out; wording to be added is underlined.

REFERENCE

KEY

SEC. 1.14. GENERAL CODE

301-1 G-S.1. IDENTIFICATION

(This item was adopted)

The Committee received several comments concerning this paragraph. The

concerns centered around two areas: one, the location of the required

information on devices, and two, the clarity of the paragraph itself. With respect to the location of the required information the following

comments were expressed:

Weighing elements when installed in check-out stands are not under the

control of the scale manufacturer and are often recessed in the counter. The level indicating means are often installed on the device but under the

platter. This is appropriate according to Scales Code paragraph S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means, providing the platter can be easily removed

without a tool. Why not allow the markings to be in the same location?

There are other devices where the markings are located inside a door of a housing that can be easily opened.

The Committee agrees with these comments and recommends that this paragraph be amended to read: G-S.l. Identification. - All equipment except weights shall be

clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of identification with the following:

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or

distributor;

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern

or design of the device; and

(c) except for equipment with no moving or electronic

component parts, a nonrepetitive serial number (nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968).

106
Specifications and Tolerances

(d) The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an

abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the

number as the required serial number. (Nonretroactive

as of January 1, 1986.)

The required information shall be so located that it is readily

observable without the necessity of the disassembly of a part

requiring the use of any means separate from the device.

301-2 THE INDICATION OF ZERO ON DIGITAL INDICATING

ELEMENTS.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A comment was received that an indication of "zero" on any digital

indicator should clearly indicate the status of the device and the value of

the division that is displayed. For example, it would be inappropriate to display only one zero (0) if the device was displaying in increments of thousandths (0.001) or tens (10). This is consistent with what has been

required in type evaluation examinations for many years. The Committee

agrees and recommends that paragraph G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and

Representation be amended by adding the following nonretroactive clause.

(d) A digital zero indication includes the display of a zero

for all places that are displayed to the right of the

decimal point and at least one place to the left. When

no decimal values are displayed, a zero shall be dis- played for each place of the indicated division. 301-3 PROVISION FOR SEALING ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A comment was received that the principles of the sealing requirement as

it appears in the Scales Code paragraph S.1.10, are applicable to equipment in other codes. The Committee agrees and recommends that a new

nonretroactive paragraph be added to the General Code to read: G-S.8. PROVISION FOR SEALING ELECTRONIC ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS. - Provision shall be made for applying a

security seal in a manner that requires the seal to be broken

before an adjustment can be made to any electronic adjusting

mechanism that affects the performance of the device.

301-4 A MECHANISM OR TECHNOLOGY REFERENCED IN A

REQUIREMENT THAT MAY NOT BE UTILIZED IN ALL

DEVICES.

(Information Item)

The Committee received two comments that there are requirements that reference a particular mechanism or technology that may not be included

in all devices. The concern expressed was that this could be construed to require the particular mechanism or technology referenced. For example,

107
Specifications and Tolerances

Scales Code paragraph S.l.1.1. refers to a "center of zero" indicator and

paragraph S.l.6.1. refers to a "locking screw" on a poise.

It is the view of the Committee that these paragraphs are clear and that the language used should not be interpreted to require a "center of zero"

indicator or a "locking screw on a poise". There is ample evidence of

that, since the reference to the locking screw has been in that paragraph

for over 40 years and many poises are not equipped with locking screws. Therefore, the Committee recommends no action. SECTION 2.20. SCALES CODE

All references are to the Scales Code that becomes effective January 1, 1986. The first eight items, that is items 302-1 through 302-8, deal with

normal routine issues not related to the transition to the new Scales Code

Format and Tolerances. Items 302-9 through 302-14, deal with issues that are a result of this transition. 302-1 S.l.8.3. CUSTOMER'S INDICATIONS.

(This item was adopted)

A comment was received that this paragraph should be amended so that

it is consistent with the Uniform Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation paragraph 1.9. which reads,

"1.9. PRICING OF BULK FOOD COMMODITIES. - Bulk food

commodities or food commodities not in package form and

sold by weight shall be priced in terms of whole units of weight and not in common or decimal fractions (effective

January 1, 1977)."

The areas of particular concern in paragraph S.l.8.3. were the use of the words "multiples" and "pound", the two words that do not appear in paragraph 1.9. It is the view of the Committee that there is no conflict with respect to the word "multiple" since as paragraph 1.9. allows sales in multiples of a unit of weight such as 3 pounds for $1.00, a computing

scale could be designed to utilize that method.

With respect to the word "pound", the Committee agrees that there is a

conflict. This would seem to preclude "kilogram", for example. Thus the

Committee recommends that the last sentence of this paragraph be

amended to read: "Unit Price displays visible to the customer shall be in terms

of whole units of weight and not in common or decimal

fractions."

108
Specifications and Tolerances

302-2 S.2.3. TARE

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A comment expressed need for clarification of the intent of the part of

this paragraph dealing with devices that automatically clear any tare value or unit price entered. The language seems to preclude the manual

clearing of tare. The intent of this part is to limit this technology,

insofar as practical, to prevent the facilitation of fraud. For example, if a tare were entered and displayed to the customer and the seller merely

touched the platter immediately before placing the commodity to be

weighed on the scale, this action would clear the tare and not be

apparent to the customer. The Committee agrees that clarification is necessary and recommends this sentence be amended as follows: A device designed to automatically clear any tare value

enfceredy means- shall also be provided designed to prevent the automatic clearing of tare until a complete transaction has

been indicated.*

302-3 S.6.6. MARKING REQUIREMENTS/PREPACKAGING SCALES.

(This item was adopted)

The Committee received a comment that scales designed for particular

applications, such as postal scales, should be marked so that the use for which they are designed is clear to a prospective purchaser. The

Committee agrees and recommends that this paragraph be amended to read:

S.6.6. SCALES DESIGNED FOR SPECIAL APPLICATIONS.-Any

scale that is designed for a special application, such as a

prepackaging or postal scale, the design of which is such that

it would not be appropriate for general use, shall be conspicuously marked with suitable words, visible to the operator and

the customer, defining and restricting use of the scale to the

application (Amended and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986).

302-4 N.1.3. SHIFT TEST.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

The Committee received two comments that this part was not clear with

respect to shift tests as applied to monorail scales, to axle-load scales, or

to livestock scales with more than two sections. The Committee agrees

and recommends Code Amendment as follows:

109
Specifications and Tolerances

Add a new paragraph to read:

N.l.3.6. MONORAIL SCALES. - A shift test shall be con- ducted with a test load equal to the largest load that can be

anticipated to be weighed in a given installation, but never

less than one-half scale capacity. The load shall be placed

successively on the right end, the left end, and the center of the live rail. Amend the title of paragraph N.l.3.4. to read:

N.l.3.4. LIVESTOCK SCALES WITH MORE THAN TWO

SECTIONS, AND ALL VEHICLE AND AXLE-LOAD SCALES

302-5 UR.2.5. ACCESS TO PIT

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A comment was received that this paragraph applies to scales with pits

and omits any reference to self-contained scales not installed in a pit, or to axle-load scales, or railway track scales. The Committee agrees that

this seems to be an oversight and that reference should be made to these

devices, and recommends this paragraph be amended to read: U.R.2.5. ACCESS TO WEIGHING ELEMENTS.- Adequate

provision shall be made for ready access to the pit of a

vehicle, livestock, animal, axle-load or railway track scale for the purpose of inspection and maintenance. Any of these

scales without a pit shall be installed with adequate means for inspection and maintenance of the weighing elements.

302-6 VALUE OF THE SCALE DIVISION, INDICATED AND

RECORDED.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A comment was received that it should be made clear that the value of the scale division as recorded should be the same value as indicated.

The Committee agrees and recommends amendment as follows: Add a new nonretroactive User Requirement to read: UR.1.3. - VALUE OF THE INDICATED AND RECORDED

SCALE DIVISION. - Except for class I scales, the value of

the division as recorded shall be the same as the division value indicated.

110
Specifications and Tolerances

302-7 DEFINITIONS.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

On the basis of comments received the Committee recommends that the

definition section be amended as follows: Add the following definitions: scale section. A part of a vehicle, axle-load, livestock, or railway track scale consisting of two main load supports

usually transverse to the direction in which the load is applied.

section test. A test in which the test load is applied over

individual sections of the scale. This test is conducted to disclose the weighing performance of individual sections, since scale capacity test loads are not always available and loads weighed are not always distributed evenly over all main load

supports.

302-8 APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS TO FIELD EXAMINATIONS

OR TO TYPE EVALUATION.

(Information Item)

Two comments were received on this subject. One suggested that each

paragraph in Handbook 44 be marked to identify its application to field examinations or type evaluation examinations. The other was to completely separate the two and include a table listing all the various kinds

of scales, then listing all paragraphs that would be applied by the field inspector. Various comments were made by attendees at the interim

meeting. Many weights and measures officials expressed the view that although certain paragraphs such as those applying to graduations, indicators, parallax, beams, and poises are design criteria, any of these components are subject to exchange or modification in the field. It was

felt that if these paragraphs were marked as applicable to type evaluation

examinations, when exchanges or modifications were made in the field they could not be applied in a field examination. Other concerns were

also expressed.

It is the view of the Committee that this issue is best resolved by not changing Handbook 44 at the present time, and that the best aids for the

field inspector are the Examination Procedure Outlines published by OWM.

New drafts have been completed for almost all types of scales and are

serving as the basis for the new training manuals. Further changes will be

made consistent with the New Scales Code Format and Tolerances.

Ill
Specifications and Tolerances

302-9 IMPACT OF INFLUENCE FACTORS

(This item was adopted)

A paragraph in parenthesis appears at the beginning of the New Scales

Code Format and Tolerances as printed in the 1985 Edition of HB 44. This paragraph was included to clarify the effective dates of the new

code on scales depending on the date of manufacture. Concern has been

expressed about the capability of verifying that previously approved scales meet the performance requirements imposed by the introduction of the

influence factor criteria in the new code.

Compliance with the influence factors can only be verified in an adequately equipped laboratory, and it is anticipated that such tests will identify a need to make changes in many scales. The relatively short

period of time remaining before the effective date of the new code

(January 1, 1986) appears to be inadequate to provide for all the necessary testing and possible scale modification. The Committee is therefore

recommending phasing in the application of the influence factor requirements over a two year period.

An explanation of the impact of the transition to the new code and

delaying the influence factors follows. Marking with class designation

Scales manufactured before January 1, 1986 do not have to be marked

with a class designation. All scales manufactured after January 1, 1986

must be marked with the class designation.

Compliance with influence factors Between January 1, 1986 and January 1, 1988, previously type approved

devices must meet the requirements of the new code, except for certain new influence factors; after January 1, 1988, they must meet all re- quirements of the new code.

Devices type evaluated after January 1, 1986 must meet all requirements

of the new code, includhg the influence factors. Impact on field official Due to the phase in, the field official will not know whether or not a device marked with a class designation meets the requirements of the

influence factors. This ambiguity will have no impact on the responsibilities of the field official, who is not expected to test for compliance

with the influence factors in any case. Documentation of degree of compliance

Between January 1, 1986 and January 1, 1988, the Certificate of Conformance is the only official record that a device marked with a class designation meets the influence factor criteria.

112
Specifications and Tolerances

Committee recommendations

The Committee recommends the following changes in the new code to

clarify this modification in the plan for implementation of the new scales code:

Amend the opening paragraph to read:

(This code will become effective and enforceable January 1, 1986. Scales manufactured after January 1, 1986, must be

marked I, n, m, HI L, or mi. See paragraph S.6.1.) Amend Paragraph T.N.8. Influence factors to read: T.N.8. Influence Factors. - The following factors are applicable to tests conducted under controlled conditions only,

provided that

(a) types of devices approved prior to January 1, 1986 and

manufactured prior to January 1, 1988, need not meet

the requirements of this section, and

(b) new types of devices submitted for approval after January 1, 1986 shall comply with the requirements of

this section, and

(c) all devices manufactured after January 1, 1988 shall comply with the requirements of this section. Add the following definitions: type. - The term "type" shall be construed to mean a model

or models of a particular measurement system, instrument,

element, or a field standard that positively identifies the

design. A specific type may vary in its measurement ranges,

size, performance, and operating characteristics. 302-10 S.6. MARKING REQUIREMENTS

(This item was adopted)

A comment was received regarding paragraphs S.6.I., which requires the accuracy class to be marked, and paragraph S.6.5., which requires the

temperature limits to be marked under certain conditions. Concern was

expressed that both paragraphs specified the required marking to be "on

the identification plate", and that either or both of these markhgs might

well be appropriately placed in a suitable location "on the device". The

Committee agrees and recommends that in both paragraphs the term

"identification plate" be deleted and the word "device" be inserted. The same editorial correction will be made in paragraph T.N.8.1.1.

113
Specifications and Tolerances

302-11 S.6.1. MARKING REQUIREMENTS/ACCURACY CLASS.

(Information Item)

The Committee discussed at length the comments received regarding this paragraph. A particular concern had been expressed that a manufacturer

of a digital indicator may not be able to determine the particular class of scale with which the indicator would be interfaced in a field application. A dealer could interface a digital indicator with a vehicle scale Class HI L or an industrial scale Class HI. The question was also asked

if a Class n device could be used in a Class in application. The

Committee's views on these issues are as follows:

in most instances, a higher accuracy class scale than that recommended by Table 7 can be used; and

vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track scales are normally Class m L. However, a digital indicator marked

Class HI could be used on any of those devices, providing the

digital indicator had been "type approved" as a Class IB*.

It must be kept in mind that a special Class EI L was included for these

scales (vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track) maintaining a

relative tolerance, but expressing the tolerance in terms of the scale

division. On a Class in L vehicle scale of 120,000 pounds capacity and

20 pound divisions (n=6000), the maintenance tolerance at a capacity load

is 240 pounds (the same as presently required). On a Class IE scale with

the same capacity and scale division, the maintenance tolerance at a capacity load is 100 pounds. Other illustrations are:

Maintenance Tolerance

at Capacity Load

Scale Scale

Capacity Division Class IIIL Class III

100 000 lb 10 lb 200 lb 50

100 000 20 200 100

100 000 50 200 100 100 000 100 200 200

200 000 50 400 150

This table clearly illustrates one of the principles of the new tolerance

structure; the number and value of the scale divisions affect the accuracy

required of the scale. Obviously this is not true for a Class HI L scale.

It also illustrates that on a scale with 1000 divisions, the tolerance is the same for Class in as in L. Thus, a livestock scale with 1000 divisions marked Class HI would imply that it is a more accurate device than one marked in L when, in fact, it is not.

114
Specifications and Tolerances

It is the view of the Committee that, since Class in L was included to deal particularly with vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track

scales, the device should be marked in L in these applications. This

should not present a problem for manufacturers since most digital indicators are marked with the capacity and scale division at installation; the same can be done with 'HI L". This decision should lessen confusion in the marketing process. 302-12 T.N.8. INFLUENCE FACTORS.

(This information item was withdrawn from the

Committee's report but is repeated below for reference.

It was resolved under Item 302-9)

A comment was received that the reference to "type evaluation

examinations" in this paragraph should more appropriately be "laboratory

tests". It is true that these tests can only be conducted properly in a

laboratory, and most likely will be in all instances. It is also true that

they apply only to type evaluations, not initial, periodic, or subsequent

field examinations. This is further supported by paragraph T.N.2.3. which

states that in subsequent examinations the tolerance values apply,

regardless of the influence factors in effect at the time of the test. The

Committee hopes that this explanation clarifies the issue and recommends

no change.

302-13 UR.1.1. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS/GENERAL - TABLE 7

(This item was adopted as amended. See the discussion

at the end of the item for the voting sequence)

Several comments and recommendations were received concerning this part of the New Scales Code Format and Tolerances. It is the view of

the Committee that this part is perhaps the least understood of all the new material. The Committee hopes that the following explanation and

recommendations respond to all the questions and concerns expressed.

One of the basic principles of the new format and tolerances is that, in general, the value of the scale division and the number of divisions of a

scale indicate the accuracy of the scale, and that certain weighing

applications require more accuracy than others. Thus, the establishment of

different accuracy classes. Economic considerations are and always have been involved in weights and

measures decisions. Tolerances have long been established on the basis of the cost of manufacture and maintenance of equipment. Many years ago, the maximum value of the scale division for certain devices or weighing

applications was established because of economic impact. Most of these were first set when scale capacities were considerably smaller. For example, when the maximum value of the scale division on livestock

scales was specified as 5 pounds, almost all livestock scales were 10 000

pounds capacity or less, hence the number of scale divisions was 2000. The scale division value, 5 pounds, remained constant as the scale capacity and size of the weighments increased, which increased the

number of scale divisions without changing the percentage tolerance.

115
Specifications and Tolerances

Consequently, when weighing a 20 000-pound load of livestock, the ratio of the load to the scale division becomes 4000:1; the value of the tolerance at that load is 40 pounds, equal to eight scale divisions. The

question arises as to the necessity of weighing that load to the closest

five pounds when the allowable error is 40 pounds. It seems much more

reasonable to set a larger scale division value. Similar illustrations apply

to vehicle and railway track scales. With respect to retail scales, the value of the scale division for scales of 50-pound capacity or less was established many years ago at one ounce.

This seemed to be a practical value when weighing bulk commodities, as was most frequently done, in specified amounts of 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, or 20

pounds.

Technology and marketing practices have long since changed, but not the

specified division value of one ounce. Device manufacturers and the marketplace have therefore reacted.

The value of the scale division for most retail scales today is 0.01 pound,

or even 0.005 pound, as a result of the marketplace, not weights and

measures regulation. This seems to be a clear indication that a catalyst

for change and an orderly marketplace can result from factors other

than regulation. It should also relieve some of the concerns expressed

with respect to eliminating the specifying of a maximum value of the

scale division. There is, however, a need to advise the user or purchaser of a device

that it is not appropriate to use the same scale to weigh anything from a

railroad car to a 100-pound sack of seed corn. This is partially accomplished with the establishment of Table 8, which lists recommended

minimum loads to be commercially weighed. These minimum loads are

expressed in terms of the scale division (d). For example, the recom- mended minimum load to be weighed on a Class HI scale is 20d. The following example illustrates the significance of this recommended

value. A purveyor of wholesale meat products has purchased a scale with a capacity of 1000 pounds with a 1-pound scale division. The scale is to be used to weigh many different large portions of meat, including

individual pork loins. If a pork loin actually weighing 19 1/2 pounds is weighed by a purveyor on his scale (adjusted to zero error), by attempting

to weigh to the closest scale division of 1 pound he would most likely

arrive at 20 pounds. The resultant error in this weighing process would

be 1/2 pound, or 2 1/2 percent of the load. A weights and measures

official would probably consider the maintenance tolerance to be 0.1 percent or 1 pound per 1000 pounds on such a scale. The illustrative weighing error is thus 25 times the maintenance tolerance.

Similarly, consider a digital computing scale with 0.01-pound scale

divisions. If 0.195 pound of shrimp were weighed, the scale would

indicate either 0.19 pound or 0.20 pound, in error by more than 2 1/2

percent. This is the largest error that can result when weighing a load

equal to 20 scale divisions. When weighing random loads, the load will not always be equal to 19.5d; some will be 19.6, 19.7, 19.8, or 20.1, 20.2,

20.3, and so on. The closer the actual load is to a whole scale division value, the smaller the relative error.116
Specifications and Tolerances

The recommended minimum load serves as a guide to the purchaser in buying a scale for his weighing needs, to the scale salesperson in recommending the design of a scale to sell, and to the weights and measures official in determining the appropriateness of a scale used in a

particular application.

There are other considerations, of course, including the value of the

product to be weighed and the time involved in the weighing process. It

is expected that the average weighments will exceed 20d by at least five

times, resulting in less uncertainty and relatively more accurate weighing.

The new format also responds to these considerations in the establishment

of accuracy classes and the tolerances as a function of the scale division. Weights and measures officials have always been concerned in applying

General Code, paragraph G-UR.1.1., Suitability of Equipment. This has

been a subject of discussion at many Conferences over the years and, more often, at almost any gathering of concerned parties, probably since the beginning of weights and measures. It would be ideal if hard and

fast rules could be established, but the same predicament would

undoubtedly arise again with new developments in the course of time.

Everyone seems to recognize the difficulty of this task, but the new

format appears to provide more guidance than any previous attempts.

Thus, the Committee recommends the following:

Change Table 7 to Table 7a as follows to apply to devices marked with a

class designation:

Table 7a TYPICAL CLASS OR TYPE OF DEVICE

FOR WEIGHING APPLICATIONS

Class Weighing Application or Scale Type

I Precision laboratory weighing n Laboratory weighing, wholesale precious metals &

gem weighing, grain test scales HI All commercial weighing not otherwise specified,

retail precious metals <5c gem weighing, grain test scales

HI L Vehicle, axle-load, livestock & railway track

scales mi Highway weight enforcement, wheel-load

weighers, and portable axle-load weighers

117
Specifications and Tolerances

Add Table 7b as follows to apply to devices not marked with a class designation:

Table 7b

APPLICABLE TO DEVICES NOT MARKED

WITH CLASS DESIGNATION

Scale Type or Design

Maximum

V_ i 11A _ j Value oi d

Retail Foods Scales, 50-lb

1 ounce

1 pound

5 pounds

Grain Hopper Scales

Cap. up to and including 50 000 lb 10 pounds (but not greater

than 0.05% of capacity)

20 pounds

capacity

Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales Used

in Combination

Cap. up to and including 200,000 lb. 20 pounds

Cap. over 200,000 lb ... . 50 pounds

Railway Track Scales

Automatic indicating ....

20 pounds

100 pounds

Scales with Capacities greater than

500 lb and not otherwise specified 0.1% capacity (but not greater

than 50 lb)

0.25% capacity (but not greater

than 50 lb)

Note: For scales not specified in this UR.l. apply. table paragraphs G-UR.1.1., and

118
Specifications and Tolerances

Amend paragraph UR.1.1. General to read: UR.1.1. General. -

(a) for devices marked with a class designation the typical

class or type of device for use in particular weighing

applications are as shown in Table 7a, and

(b) for devices not marked with a class designation Table

7b applies.

After discussion, Item 302-13 was defeated (State Representatives 32-11; Delegates 30-41). It was brought to the attention of the Conference that as

a result of this item being defeated, the Table 7 as it presently appears in H-44 in the New Scales Code Format remains in force, resulting in a

conflict between Table 7 and Table 3. In order to resolve the conflict, a motion to suspend the rules of the Conference passed (State Representatives

41-2; Delegates 59-13). A motion to reconsider Item 302-13 passed (State

Representatives 42-1; Delegates 59-11). Several recommendations for amendments were made and discussed. A motion was made, seconded, and

passed to amend this item as follows:

In Table 7a, under class II delete the word "wholesale" and

under Class in, delete the words "retail precious metals and

gem weighing".

This admendment was adopted (States Representatives 43-0; Delegates

71-2) Item 302-13 as amended was adopted (States Representatives 43-0; Delegates 67-2).

302-14 OTHER LESS SUBSTANTIVE OR EDITORIAL CHANGES

(This item was adopted)

T. Tolerances. - For scales not marked I, II, III, III L, or Iin add T.1.3. To Tests Involving Digital Indications or Representations, as it appears in the old code, but renumber

T.l.1.2. in new code.

T.1.2. - Add to the end of this paragraph the following sentence:Paragraphs T.N.2.5., T.N.4., T.N.5., and T.N.7.2. also apply.

T.1.2. Table 5. - This table is appropriate for almost all devices encountered, but is not appropriate when the value of

"d" is 1/16 oz (.005 lb) or smaller. Add a new paragraph to read:

119
Specifications and Tolerances

T.l.2.1. When the value of "d" is less than 1/16 oz, 0.005 lb, 2 grams, or 35 grains, the maintenance

tolerance shall be 0.1% of test load and the acceptance

tolerance shall be 0.05% of test load, but never less than one-half "d" or 0.05% (1/2000) of scale capacity,

whichever is less. Amend T.l.l. General by adding to the end of the paragraph

the following words:

"for Class III Devices".

Amend Table 5 of T.1.2. so that a further step is added as

follows:

Test Maintenance Acceptance

loads tolerance tolerance

(lb) Ounce Pound Ounce Pound

24+ to 30 incl. 1/2 030 1/4 015 over 30 0.1% of Test Load 0.05% of Test Load

Add a paragraph to read:

T.l.l. 3. Minimum Tolerance. - When not otherwise specified

the minimum tolerance to be applied shall be 0.05% (1/2000)

of scale capacity or one-half "d", whichever is less. Amend "T.N.2.5. Ratio Tests" by deleting the words "values specified in table 6" and insert the words "applicable tolerances". Amend "T.N. 8. 4. Barometric Pressure" by adding an exception for Class

I scales. Under "UR.3.1. Minimum Load" change all references to "Recommended

Minimum Load".

A comment was received that in order to reduce the uncertainty in determining the quantity of foreign material (dockage) in a sample of

grain, a minimum weight of the sample size, and a minimum load to be

weighed, expressed in scale division values (d), should be specified. The

Committee agrees and recommends the Code be amended by adding the following new paragraph.

UR.3.1.1. MINIMUM LOAD/GRAIN DOCKAGE DETERMINATION. - When determining the quantity of foreign material

(dockage) in grain, the weight of the sample shall be equal to

or greater than 500 scale divisions.

120
Specifications and Tolerances

302-15 WEIGHING-IN-MOTION TASK FORCE

(Information item)

In its report to the 69th Conference (1984), Item 301-7, the Committee

recommended the establishment of a task force to deal with the issues developing with in-motion-weighing, particularly the definition of a unit train and the test methods to be used for devices weighing unit trains. Because a number of other task forces are already dealing with special problems and

because of the press of other issues, a task force was not established. However, representatives of the American Association of Railroads (AAR) did

start an effort. A recommended test method and report form was developed

and some initial tests run. An oral report of progress was presented to the Conference by a representative of AAR. The Committee appreciates this effort and feels that the work of this group would be a vital and significant

contribution to the Conference. The Committee urges that this work be

continued and hopes that a report can be developed for its study and review

at the next interim meeting in January 1986. 302-16 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION TECHNICAL

COMMITTEE, SCALES AND WEIGHING SYSTEMS SECTOR.

(This item was adopted)

On the basis of the Meethg of this Technical Committee the Specifications and Tolerances Committee recommends the additions or amendments to the Handbook on Type Evaluations in Appendix A. BELT-CONVEYOR SCALES CODE

303-1 CODE REVISION

(This item was adopted)

The Belt-Conveyor Scales Task Force submitted its final draft revision of the Code to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances prior to the NCWM Interim Meeting. The Committee felt there were several issues in this draft in need of clarification and circulated a questionnaire to the Task

Force for their comments. On the basis of the response, the Committee

made a few changes to the final draft, and now presents as its recommendation for adoption the Revised Code for Belt-Conveyor Scales as

it appears in Appendix B.

121
Specifications and Tolerances

SECTION 2.22. AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS FOR GRAIN CODE

304-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE (FGIS)

(Information item)

The Committee was informed that the Federal Grain iispection Service is reviewing its regulations applicable to these systems, as well as other

scales under its jurisdiction. The Committee urges FGIS to reference in its entirety this code which was cooperatively developed and mutually agreed

upon by FGIS and OWM. This will result in national uniformity with a Code

that is equitable, practical, efficient, and effective for all parties concerned. A report was made at the Conference by a representative of FGIS

indicating that a review of its regulations has been made and submitted to OMB for approval and is expected to be printed in the Federal Register in about 30 days.

304-2 IMPACT OF NEW SCALES CODE FORMAT AND

TOLERANCES.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

It is the view of the Committee that this Grain Code recognizes a special

type and design of device and should be maintained as a separate Code.

However, the Committee recommends that the requirements in the new

Scales Code listed below (marking requirements and requirements involving

influence factors) be added on a nonretroactive basis and numbered according

to this Grain Code.

T.N.7.2. DISCRIMINATION/DIGITAL AUTOMATIC

INDICATING.

T.N.8. INFLUENCE FACTORS

T.N.8.1. TEMPERATURE

T.N.8.1.1. T.N .8.1.2. T.N.8.1.3. TEMPERATURE EFFECT ON ZERO-LOAD

BALANCE.

T.N.8.1.4. OPERATING TEMPERATURE.

T.N.8.2. HUMIDITY

T.N.8.3. ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY

T.N.8.3.1. POWER SUPPLY, VOLTAGE AND

FREQUENCY

T.N.8.3.2. POWER INTERRUPTION

T.N.8.4. BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.

S.6.5. MARKING REQUIREMENTS/TEMPERATURE LIMITS.

122
Specifications and Tolerances

304-3 APPLICATION OF THIS CODE TO ALL SYSTEMS.

(Information item)

A recommendation was received that this Code be amended to include all such systems, not only those used for weighing grain. The Committee agrees

in principle with this suggestion but is not certain that time is sufficient to adequately determine the impact on all other such systems used for weighing

other materials. The Committee's greatest concern is with systems used to weigh construction materials such as sand and gravel, or minerals such as coal and ore. A brief overview of this code seems to indicate that all other systems could

be included with the following changes or additions:

T.2.1. MINIMUM TOLERANCE VALUES/FOR SYSTEMS USED

TO WEIGH CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. - Hie minimum

maintenance and acceptance tolerance shall be 0.1 percent of the weighing capacity of the system, or the value of the scale

division, whichever is less. T.3.1. BASIC TOLERANCE VALUES/FOR SYSTEMS USED TO

WEIGH COMMODITIES OTHER THAN GRAIN. - The basic

maintenance tolerance shall be two pounds per 1000 pounds of

test load (0.2 percent). The basic acceptance tolerance shall be one-half the basic maintenance tolerance. UR.1.1. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS/FOR SYSTEMS USED

TO WEIGH COMMODITIES OTHER THAN GRAIN. - The

number of scale divisions shall not be less than 500 or greater

than 10,000.

UR.3.1. LOADING REQUIREMENTS/FOR SYSTEMS USED TO

WEIGH COMMODITIES OTHER THAN GRAIN. - A system

shall not be used to weigh drafts of less than 20% of the

weighing capacity of the system except for a final partial draft.

If the comments received are mostly positive and any negative comments

can be properly addressed, the Committee will recommend adoption by the

71st Conference.

The Committee reminds the Conference that this code does not apply to batchhg systems, for which the Scale Code applies.

123
Specifications and Tolerances

SECTION 2.23. WEIGHTS CODE

305-1 T. TOLERANCES, TABLE 1. (This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

On the basis of a suggestion received, the Committee recommends that equivalent metric units be added for the tolerances specified in this table.

In the interest of space, the table is not reproduced in this report; the

Committee hopes that this inconvenience is acceptable to the Conference,

considering that the values are unchanged.

SECTION 3,30 LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES CODE

306-1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDICATIONS.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

The Committee was alerted to a situation where quantity values within a system do not agree. This condition had already been recognized and deemed

appropriate in the Type Evaluation Handbook. However, this information is not readily available to the field inspector, hence should be included in H-44

for ready reference. An explanation follows: A retail motor fuel dispenser equipped with an electronic digital

indicating computing element may also be equipped with a pulser that

"pulses" only money values, sending that information to a console. The

console receives the information and displays a total sales price that is exactly the same value as displayed on the dispenser. The quantity

value displayed by the console is "derived" at the console by dividing

the total sales price by the unit price. Because more than one quantity

at a particular unit price can result from the total sales price, the

quantity value displayed at the dispenser may differ slightly from the

quantity value at the console. The following illustrates this situation:

Quantity Unit Computed Rounded

(Gal) Price Total Price Total Price

18.597 $1,129 $20.9960 $21.00

18.598 1.129 20.9971 21.00

18.599 1.129 20.9983 21.00

18.600 1.129 20.9994 21.00

18.601 1.129 21.0005 21.00

18.602 1.129 21.0017 21.00

18.603 1.129 21.0028 21.00

18.604 1.129 21.0039 21.00

124
Specifications and Tolerances

At a unit price of $1,129, eight possible different quantities can

result in a correctly computed total price of $21.00. When a customer or an attendant completes a delivery at $21.00, the

displayed total quantity could be any value from 18.597 gallons up to and including 18.604 gallons. It is highly unlikely that the displayed

total quantity would be the same for any two deliveries of $21.00.

When the console receives only the $21.00 information, it divides

this value by $1,129 and, depending on the algorithm by which it is programmed, will present a total quantity value of from 18.597

gallons to 18.604 gallons. If it is programmed to display the first quantity that can result from a $21.00 sale at $1,129 a gallon, it will display a quantity, of 18.597 gallons. If it is programmed to display the largest quantity it will display 18.604 gallons.

This technology has been deemed appropriate since the total price to the customer is always correct and the same at the dispenser and console. The formula of quantity times unit price equals sales price to the nearest cent is met by both the dispenser and the console, and there are inherent

economies in utilizing only one pulser.

It has been recommended that the algorithm to be used is that which

displays the largest quantity at the console. Thus, when a customer

orders a specific quantity of product, the dispenser should stop at a

delivery equal to or greater than the amount of product requested.

To respond to the suggestion that this technology be recognized in H-44,

the Committee recommends that S. 1.4.5. be renumbered S. 1.4.7. and that a new paragraph be added to read:

S.l.4.5. AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDICATIONS. -When a quantity

value indicated or recorded by an auxiliary element is a derived or computed value based on data received from a

retail motor fuel dispenser, the value may differ from the quantity value displayed on the dispenser, provided the following conditions are met:

(a) all total money values for an individual sale that are

indicated or recorded by the system agree, and

(b) within each element, the values indicated or recorded

meet the formula (quantity x unit price = total sales price) to the closest cent.

125
Specifications and Tolerances

306-2 RECORDED REPRESENTATIONS, POINT OF SALE SYSTEMS.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

During a meeting of the NTETC, all agreed that a ticket issued by an

electronic cash register in a point of sale system should include product

identity. It was the view of NTETC that this information could not be

required in the Type Evaluation Handbook without H-44 amendment.

It is the view of the Committee that the same principles expressed in the Scales Code paragraph S.l.8.4. dealing with this technology for scales is also appropriate for liquid-measuring devices. Thus the Committee

recommends the Code be amended by adding the following new

nonretroactive paragraph:

S.l.4.6. RECORDED REPRESENTATIONS, POINT OF SALE

SYSTEMS.-The sales information recorded by cash registers

when interfaced with a retail motor-fuel dispenser shall contain the following information for products delivered by the

dispenser;

(a) the total volume of the delivery,

(b) the unit price,

(c) the total computed price, and

(d) the product identity by name, symbol,

abbreviation, or code number.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986)

306-3 S.2.5. ZERO-SET-BACK INTERLOCK.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A comment was received that, although a particular design of a zero- set-back interlock seemed consistent with the criteria of this paragraph,

the design of the starting lever itself or the hook on which the handle is hung could be such that an operator could by-pass the interlock and this action not be readily apparent to a customer. It is the view of the Committee that it is impossible to write an all-inclusive paragraph, and

that this condition would best be controlled by applying General Code

paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud. Thus, the Committee recommends

that this requirement be amended by adding the following parenthetical to the end of this paragraph:

(See also G-S.2.)

306-4 SECTION 3, ALL CODES DEALING WITH LIQUID-MEASURING

DEVICES

(Information item)

Consistent with the five-year plan of the Committee, a draft revision of Sec. 3 was prepared for review by the Committee at its interim meeting.

126
Specifications and Tolerances

It is the view of the Committee that this draft should be considered by

the Conference. However, because of the many other important issues facing the Conference and the magnitude of the draft, it was decided

that the draft not be printed in this year's report, but rather widely

circulated as a separate document to all interested parties, and available

at this year's Conference.

The Committee requests that all recipients of the draft review it carefully during 1985 and that comments be submitted to the Committee

prior to its interim meeting in January 1986, so that the Committee can recommend appropriate action to the 1986 Conference.

306-5 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION TECHNICAL

COMMITTEE, METERS AND MEASURING SECTION

(This item was adopted)

On the basis of the meeting of NTETC, the Committee recommends

additions to the Handbook on Type Evaluations in Appendix C.

SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE TANK METERS CODE

307-1 SPLIT COMPARTMENT TEST

(information item)

The Committee considered two recommendations concerning this test. The first dealt with the impact of this test on single compartment

vehicles, and the other requested review of the appropriateness of the tolerance applicable to this test. With respect to single compartment vehicles, it is the Committee's view

that this test should be conducted on single compartment vehicles since it

is reasonable to assume that the tank will be emptied in some deliveries. The Committee will include this clarification in the recommended

consolidation of all L.M.D. codes for action next year. The Committee has reviewed the subject of applicable tolerances a number of times over the years without rccommendating change. Hie

Committee is aware that the error in delivery caused by exhaustion of

the supply of fluid in a tank is generally not dependent on the size of the delivery. The problem with the existing tolerance on a split

compartment test is that the tolerance on a 200-gallon delivery is twice

the tolerance on a 100-gallon delivery, and the error on the same vehicle

tank meter would likely be the same for both deliveries. The existing tolerance (acceptance and maintenance) on a split compartment test is 1 cubic inch per gallon, 0.43% in relative terms. To eliminate the apparent disparity between the tolerance when using a

200-gallon prover that is twice that for the usual 100-gallon prover would

127
Specifications and Tolerances

require that the tolerance on this test be established in another way. This

could be done, for example, by establishing the tolerance for any size

delivery as a fixed value based on meter size (such as 1 1/4 in) or maximum delivery rate (e.g., 250 gpm).

Until now the Committee has felt that the present tolerance is equitable

and practical since it represents a maximum error of 0.43% for any

delivery when the supply is exhausted. It also means that, if a meter is performing near the tolerance limits in a negative direction during a normal test, the meter would likely fail the split compartment test. If an additive tolerance were used, this would not necessarily be so. The Committee intends to continue its review of all tolerances as applied

to all meters and of the problem of prover design, and will welcome

comments or data on these subjects.

307-2 AGRI-CHEMICAL METERS.

(This item was adopted)

In the Committee's report to the 69th NCWM (1984), the item on this subject (303-9) included the recommendations of the Meter Manufacturers*

Technical Committee for a code for equipment dispensing agri-chemicals.

Only limited data were available with respect to the performance capabilities of this equipment and the Committee requested additional data

from Conference members. Only a small amount of additional data has

been received. It is the Committee's view that Code requirements are necessary now, and that only when there is a code will further data

develop. Thus the Committee recommends that the Code for Vehicle-Tank Meters be amended and the Code for Liquid-Measuring Devices

be similarly amended to apply to wholesale devices as follows: Amend A.l. to read,

A.l. - This Code applies to meters mounted on vehicle tanks

including those used for the measurement and delivery of petroleum products or agri-chemical liquids such as fertilizers,

feeds, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and

defoliants. Add a new tolerance paragraph to read:

T.3. TOLERANCE VALUES ON METERS USED FOR THE

MEASUREMENT OF AGRI-CHEMICAL LIQUIDS.-The

maintenance tolerance on normal and special tests shall be 1%

of the indicated volume. The acceptance tolerance on a normal test shall be 0.5% of the indicated volume and, on

special tests, 1% of the indicated volume.

The Committee recommends that safety and health standards be followed

when testing devices dispensing these products.

128
Specifications and Tolerances

307-3 FIELD STANDARDS

(Information item)

It has become apparent that a problem exists with respect to the design

of large capacity provers used for the test of loading-rack meters. Data

submitted by several States as well as a limited amount developed by

OWM indicate that provers do not always provide comparable and repeatable results when used in the field. It is anticipated that a combined

effort among API, the States, and OWM can result in the collection of

sufficient data to revise NBS H-105-3. This revision will provide additional design criteria for bottom loading provers, the area where most of the problems seem to be centered.

SECTION 4.43. FARM MILK TANKS

308-1 S.3. DESIGN OF INDICATING MEANS.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A comment was received that the range of volume of a tank over which

it is to be calibrated has not been specified. It was stated that

manufacturers were sometimes using gauge rods on large tanks that were

originally designed for a smaller tank resulting in significant quantities of milk that could not be measured. There is a need to determine the volume of milk at lower levels in the tank. It was therefore suggested

that a calibration should be required from 5% of capacity or 500 gallons,

whichever is less, to the capacity of the tank. The Committee agrees and recommends that the code be amended by

adding a new nonretroactive paragraph to read:

S.3.1. DESIGN OF INDICATING MEANS/GENERAL. - A tank shall include indicating means and shall be calibrated over the

entire range of the volume of the tank from 5 percent of

capacity or 500 gallons, whichever is less, to its maximum

capacity. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986)

Renumber appropriately the paragraphs that follow. Amend S.4.1. DESIGN OF VOLUME CHART/GENERAL by adding the

following words at the end of the first sentence:

...only "over the entire range of the volume of the tank from

5 percent of capacity or 500 gallons, whichever is less, to its maximum capacity."

308-2 DEFINITIONS

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

A recommendation was received that the addition of two definitions would

aid in differentiating between the two different activities, gauging (or

129
Specifications and Tolerances

calibration), and testing. The Committee agrees and recommends that

the following two definitions be added:

gauging. The process of determining and assigning volumetric

values to specific graduations on the gauge or gauge rod that serve as the basis for the tank volume chart.

testing. An operation consisting of a series of volumetric

determinations made to verify the accuracy of the volume

chart that was developed by gauging.

SECTION 5.54. TAXIMETERS

309-1 UR.2 POSITION AND ILLUMINATION OF A TAXIMETER.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

It is the view of the Committee that the meaning of this paragraph is unclear. The Committee recommends that this paragraph be amended to

read: UR.2 POSITION AND ILLUMINATION OF A TAXIMETER. -A

taximeter shall be so positioned and illuminated that its indications, operational markings, and controls can be

conveniently read by a passenger seated in the back seat of the vehicle.

309-2 TYPE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TAXIMETERS.

(This item was adopted as part of the Consent Calendar)

Type evaluation criteria and a checklist have been jointly developed by

the State of California and OWM. The draft was circulated to seven

manufacturers. As a result, the Committee recommends that the checklist in Appendix D be included in the Handbook on Type Evaluations.

The Committee expresses its sincere and grateful appreciation to all those

offering comments and suggestions. In most instances, the information was

presented in an orderly and effective manner, which greatly facilitated review of the information by the Committee and action thereon. It is only through such cooperative effort that the Conference can continue to attain uniform and equitable measurement standards. The Committee also expresses its appreciation to all those participating in the Interim

Meeting. The comments and suggestions greatly aided the Committee in its deliberation. D. A. Guensler, California, Chairman

R. Anderson, New York

K. S. Butcher, Maryland

F. A. Gerk, New Mexico

R. W. Probst, Wisconsin

O. K. Warnlof, NBS, Technical Advisor

130
Specifications and Tolerances

APPENDIX A

AMENDMENTS TO HANDBOOK ON TYPE EVALUATION

Temperature

Purpose - To determine the performance and operating characteristics of the equipment under test at different temperature levels under normal operating conditions. Pre-Test Determinations

1. Test equipment needed:

1.1. Climate chamber

1.2. Load cell simulator, if applicable

1.3. Calibrated thermometers and hygrometers

2. Simulated signal conditions:

2.1. Isolated from test conditions (to be operated in normal

laboratory environment)

3. Conditions of equipment under test:

3.1. Normal power supplied and "on" for a time period equal to or greater than the warm-up time specified by manufacturer

3.2. Adjusted as close as practicable to zero error prior to each

test.

3.3. Not to be adjusted or readjusted at any time during test.

3.4. A.Z.S.M. operable if so equipped, and appropriate for intended

use.

4. Allowable variations in test conditions:

4.1. + 4.5 °F (2.5 °C)

4.2. Moisture content of the test atmosphere must not exceed 20

g/m*

4.3. All other variables to be held as nearly as practicable to a normal condition

5. Number of test cycles to be conducted or test duration:

5.1. At least one cycle

6. Temperature limits:

6.1. Determine temperature limits. See Scales Code paragraphs

T.N.8.1.1. and T.N.8.1.2.

7. Maximum allowable variations on equipment under test:

7.1. All functions must operate as designed

7.2. "0" drift not to exceed requirements specified in Scales Code

paragraph T.N.8.1.3.

131
Specifications and Tolerances

7.3. All indications within the tolerance values specified in Scales

Code part T.N.3. Test

1. Stabilize equipment under test in climate chamber at a reference

temperature at the midpoint of the temperature extremes and at a moisture content not greater than 20 g/m 3 for a period of three hours

2. Conduct increasing and decreasing load tests with at least four

different test loads including the maximum test loads at each

tolerance value level

3. Record data: a) time, b) temperature, c) relative humidity, d) test load, e) indication, f) error, g) functions performance

4. Increase temperature to maximum specified and allow equipment to stabilize for three hours*

5. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 2 and 3

6. Reduce temperature to minimum specified and allow equipment to

stabilize for three hours*

7. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 2 and 3

8. Increase temperature to original reference temperature and allow equipment to stabilize for three hours*

9. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 2 and 3

10. Additional tests may be conducted at other levels within the temperature range

* The rate of change must not exceed 9 °F (5 °C) per hour, and the change in the zero indication during that time period shall not exceed

Id.

132
Specifications and Tolerances

Humidity*

Purpose - to determine the performance and operating characteristics of the equipment under test at different humidity levels under normal operating conditions. Pre-Test Determinations

1. Test equipment needed:

1.1. Climate chamber

1.2. Load cell simulator, if applicable

1.3. Calibrated hygrometers and thermometers

2. Simulated signal conditions:

2.1. Isolated from test conditions (to be operated in a normal

laboratory environment)

3. Conditions of equipment under test:

3.1. Normal power supplied and "on" for duration of test

3.2. Adjusted as close as practicable to zero error prior to

test

3.3. Not to be adjusted or readjusted at any time during test

3.4. A.Z.S.M. operates if so equipped and appropriate for intended use

4. Allowable variations in test conditions:

4.1. + 4.5 °F (2.5 °C) for all reference temperatures

4.2. + 3% relative humidity

4.3. "Xll other variables to be held as nearly as practicable to a normal condition

5. Number of test cycles to be conducted or test duration:

5.1. One cycle for a test duration of 4 days

6. Relative humidity and temperature limits:

6.1. 93% (non-condensing)

6.2. Maximum temperature specified for the device

7. Maximum allowable variations on equipment under test:

7.1. All functions must operate correctly

7.2. All indications within the tolerance values specified in Scale

Code Part T.N.3.

Not applicable to Class I and Class II instruments.

133
Specifications and Tolerances

Test

1. Stabilize equipment in the climate chamber at a reference

temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a relative humidity of 50% for a

period of 3 hours

2. Conduct increasing and decreasing load tests with at least four different test loads, including the maximum test loads at each

tolerance value level

3. Record data: a) time, b) temperature, c) relative humidity, d) test load, e) indication, f) error, g) functions performance

4. Increase temperature to maximum specified and increase relative humidity to 93% (non-condensing) and stabilize for 16 hours

5. Maintain reference conditions specified in point 4 for a period of 4 days

6. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 2 and 3 above

134
Specifications and Tolerances

Power Voltage Variations

Purpose - to determine the performance and operating characteristics of the equipment under test at different voltage levels under normal operating conditions. Pre-Test Determinations

1. Test equipment needed:

1.1. Variable power source

1.2. Calibrated Voltmeter

1.3. Load Cell simulator if applicable

2. Simulated signal conditions:

2.1. Isolated from test conditions (to be operated in normal

laboratory environment)

3. Conditions of equipment under test:

3.1. Normal power supplied and "on" for a time period equal to or greater than the warm-up time specified by the manufacturer

3.2. Adjusted as closely as practicable to zero error

3.3. Not to be adjusted or readjusted at any time during test

3.4. A.Z.S.M., operable if so equipped and appropriate for intended

use

4. Allowable variations in test conditions:

4.1. +_ 2 percent of power supply

4.2. All other variables to be held as nearly as practicable to a normal condition

5. Number of test cycles to be conducted or test duration:

5.1. At least one cycle

6. Power supply limits:

6.1. As specified in Scale Code paragraph T.N. 8.3.1.

7. Maximum allowable variations on equipment under test:

7.1. All functions must operate correctly

7.2. All indications within the tolerance values specified in Scale

Code part T.N. 3.

135
Specifications and Tolerances

Test

1. With power supply connected and equipment under test f, on", warm-up

equipment for a time interval equal to or exceeding manufacturer's

specified warm-up time

2. Stabilize power supply at nominal voltage + 2 percent

3. Conduct increasing and decreasing load test with at least four

different test loads, including the maximum test loads at each

tolerance value level

4. Record data: a) time, b) temperature, c) relative humidity, d) power

supply voltage, e) test load, f) indication, g) error, and h) functions

performance

5. Reduce power supply to minimum specified

6. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4

7. Increase power supply to maximum specified

8. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4

9. Reduce power supply to nominal

10. Rezero if necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4

136
Specifications and Tolerances

RFI Susceptibility

(Applicable to a complete weighing device and separate main elements

tested individually).

Purpose - to determine the effect of disturbances caused by specified

radiated interference on the performance and operating

characteristics of the equipment under test.

Pre-Test Determination

1. Test equipment needed:

1.1. Test equipment capable of producing output frequencies of 27 MHz, 5 watts; and 460 MHz, 4 watts at a field strength of 3 V/m

1.2. Equipment capable of verifying field strength at the frequency range

2. Simulated signal conditions:

2.1. Cable to instrument installed per manufacturer's instructions

or mutually agreed upon installation

2.2. Power supply cable to instrument according to manufacturer's

specifications or mutually agreed upon installation

3. Conditions of equipment under test:

3.1. Normal power supplied and "on" for a time period equal to or greater than the warm-up time specified by manufacturer

3.2. Adjust as close as practicable to zero error prior to test

3.3. Not to be adjusted or readjusted except to reset if a fault has been indicated

3.4. A.Z.S.M. "off"

4. Allowable variations in test conditions:

4.1. All factors to be held as nearly as practicable to nominal or specified reference values

5. Number of test cycles to be conducted or test duration

5.1. One test

6. Interference value limits: Field Strength Frequency Modulation

3 V/m 27 Mfc, 5 watts 50% AM, 1 kHz sine wave

460 lV«z, 4 watts

137
Specifications and Tolerances

7. Maximum allowable variations in equipment under test: The variation of the weight indications due to the disturbance

compared with the indication without the disturbance either must not exceed one d, or the instrument must: Blank the indication or indicate an error message, or The indication is completely unstable so that it could not be

interpreted, or transmitted into memory, or to a printer, as a measurement value. Test

1. The test is to be conducted at nominal reference conditions with

power supplied and "on" and warmed-up, and with the communicator

antenna positioned one meter from the electronic equipment under

test.

2. Operate the communicator individually in accordance with FCC

regulations, in the transmit mode.

3. Scan the equipment under test and any interconnecting cables by

repositioning the communicator, taking care to maintain a distance

of one meter.

4. Observe and record effect on equipment at zero load and at least one test load for each frequency.

138
Specifications and Tolerances

Permanence Test

(Applicable only to Class in and mi instruments up to and including 2000

pounds capacity.)

Purpose - To determine that the equipment under test will maintain

its metrological characteristics under simulated conditions

of use. Pre-Test Determinations

1. Test equipment needed:

1.1. Device for repeated application of test loads

2. Conditions of equipment under test:

2.1. Normal power supplied and "on" for a time period equal to or greater than the warm-up time specified by manufacturer

2.2. Adjusted as close as practicable to zero error prior to test

2.3. Not to be adjusted or readjusted at any time during test

3. Allowable variations in test conditions:

3.1. All variables to be held as nearly as practicable to normal

operating conditions

4. Number of test cycles to be conducted or test duration:

4.1. One test cycle of 100,000 weight applications.

5. Test load:

5.1. 50 % of maximum capacity

6. Maximum allowable variations on equipment under test:

6.1. All functions must operate correctly

6.2. AU indications must be within the tolerance values specified in Scales Code part T.N.3. Test

1. Energize the electronic weighing instrument and verify that aU

operational and metrological requirements are within the specified

limits

2. Adjust the instrument as close as possible to zero

3. Conduct a normal test with at least four different test loads to maximum capacity and record the data. The test loads should include

the maximum test load at each tolerance value level

139
Specifications and Tolerances

4. Apply approximately 25,000 applications of test load at 50 %

capacity. It is recommended that the frequency and speed of

application of the load shall allow the instrument to come to rest both when loaded and unloaded

5. Repeat step 3

6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 three more times until 100,000 weight

applications have been recorded

140
Specifications and Tolerances

Under Indicating and Recording Elements/General, Code Reference

G-S.5.3. Values of Graduated Intervals or Increments, add:

2. For scales indicating in two or more units, are consecutive

scale division values indicated throughout the entire weighing

range for all units?

Under Marking; Operational Controls, Indications and Features, Code

Reference G-S.6., add:

1.a. The following symbols are considered acceptable without being

further defined.

~>0<-: zero key or center of zero indicator

^>$> : tare enter key

: tare clear key

Under Automatic Multi-range Scales, change number 7 to read:

7. Except for Class I scales and Class II scales not used in direct trade, the device must indicate the same value of d for decreasing loads as indicated for increasing loads. Under E.C.R., Code Reference S.l.8.4. Recorded Representations, change

item 2.d. iiii to read:

If a dollar sign is not used to define the total price, there must be

at least one column offset of the least significant digit in the total price from other decimal points in other recorded information.

Under l.d. add the following:

Examples of product class are: "MT" for meat, "BK" for bakery,

"DA" for dairy, "DE" for delicatessen, etc. Under Recorded Representations, Code References G-S.5.6., G-S.5.1., Item

6. Random Labels by Count: paragraph b., add the following: Note: If there are no individual blocks for the printed information,

and the printer prints a qualifying term such as "pieces" or a symbol

such as "pes" in a horizontal manner reading from left to right, and

there is little doubt as to the meaning of the label, it is considered

appropriate.

Under Values Defined, Code References G-S.5.2.4., G-S.5.6.1., 2.e.i., change to read:

2. e.i. The unit shall appear adjacent to the weight display, within a

distance equal to the width of the weight values displayed.

141
Specifications and Tolerances

TYPE EVALUATION CRITERIA

GRAIN TEST SCALES

Complies?

1. Those equipped with semiautomatic

zero setting mechanism (pushbutton) can have this feature only with motion

detection; i.e., it must meet the

criteria specified in S.2.1.2. On Scales

Used in Direct Sales. Yes No N/A

2. Test weight values must be computed

to 0.01 pound per bushel or 0.01 kilogram per hectoliter. These values must round off. The symbol for bushel is lower case bu, except for a recording element equipped with only upper case letters. Yes No N/A

3. Any calculation can only be based on

the weight on the platform. Yes No N/A

4. Any operation for storing information

into a memory must have motion

detection. Yes No N/A

5. Only a semiautomatic (pushbutton) tare

is allowed. Yes No N/A

6. Calculations for test weight or percentage must be in mathematical

agreement with calculations done

manually using the displayed weights

for the calculations. Yes No N/A

The Federal Grain Inspection Service requirements for grain test scales used for official U.S. Department of Agriculture/Federal Grain Inspection

Service applications are more stringent than for Handbook 44 applications.

7. For Handbook 44 applications, percent

calculations cannot be displayed

unless:

(a) the value of the scale division is less than or equal to 0.2 g for loads up to 500 g and less than

or equal to 0.5 g for loads greater than 500 g. Yes No N/A

(b) the percentage values are computed to at least 0.1%. Yes No N/A

142
Specifications and Tolerances

Complies?

8. For FGIS applications, percent

calculations cannot be displayed

unless:

(c) the sample is greater than or equal to 120 g. Yes No N/A

(d) the value of the scale division is less than or equal to 0.01 g. Yes No N/A

(e) the quantity used for the sample

is weighed prior to the dockage

(thus eliminating any percentage

values in excess of 100 percent). Yes No N/A

(f) the percentage values are computed to at least 0.01%. If displayed to 0.01%, the values

shall be rounded to the nearest 0.01%. Yes No N/A

Future items for discussion by this Committee will include Test Procedures

for Short Time Power Interruptions, Conducted Interference, Electrostatic

Discharge, and Load Cells.

143
Specifications and Tolerances

APPENDIX B

BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

A. APPLICATION

A.I.- This code applies to belt-conveyor scale systems used for the weighing

of bulk materials.

A.2.- The code does not apply to:

(a) devices used for discrete weighing while moving on conveyors

(b) devices that measure quantity on a time basis

(c) check-weighers

(d) controllers or other auxilliary devices except as they may affect the weighing performance of the belt-conveyor scale. A.3.- See also General Code requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS

5.1.1. GENERAL.- A belt-conveyor scale shall be equipped with a primary indicating element in the form of a master weight totalizer and shall also be equipped with a recording element and a rate of flow indicator or recorder. An auxiliary indicator shall not be

considered part of the master weight totalizer. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.)

5.1. 2. UNITS.- A belt-conveyor scale shall indicate and record weight

units in terms of pounds, tons, long tons, metric tons, or kilograms.

The value of a scale division (d) expressed in a unit of weight shall be

equal tot

a. 1, 2, or 5, or

b. a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. 5.1.3. VALUE OF THE SCALE DIVISION

S.l.3.1. FOR SCALES INSTALLED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1986. - The value of the scale division shall not be greater than

0.1% (1/1000) of the minimum totalized load. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986)

144
Specifications and Tolerances

S.l.3.2. FOR SCALES INSTALLED BEFORE

JANUARY 1, 1986. - The value of the scale division shall not be

greater than 1/1200 of the rated capacity of the device.

However, provision shall be made so that compliance with the

requirements of the zero-load test as prescribed in N.3.1. may be

readily and accurately determined in 20 minutes of operation.

5.1.4. RECORDING ELEMENTS AND RECORDED

REPRESENTATIONS.- The value of the scale division of the recording

element shall be the same as that of the indicating element. It shall record the unit of measurement (i.e., pounds, tons, etc.), the date, and

time. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.)

5.1.5. RATE OF FLOW INDICATORS AND RECORDERS.- A belt- conveyor scale shall be equipped with a rate of flow indicator and

may also be equipped with a disc or strip chart recorder. Permanent means shall be provided to produce an audio or visual signal when the

rate of flow is equal to or less than 35% and equal to or greater than

100% of the rated capacity of the scale. The type of alarm (audio or

visual) shall be determined by the individual installation. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.)

5.1.6. ADVANCEMENT OF PRIMARY INDICATING OR RECORDING

ELEMENTS. -The primary indicating and recording elements shall advance only when the belt conveyor is in operation and under load.

5.1.7. MASTER WEIGHT TOTALIZER.- The master weight totalizer

shall not be resettable without breaking a security means.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.)

5.1.8. POWER LOSS.- In the event of power failure, the accumulated

measured quantity on the master weight totalizer of an electronic

digital indicator shall be retained in memory during the power loss. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.)

S.2. DESIGN OF WEIGHING ELEMENTS- A belt-conveyor scale system

shall be designed to combine automatically belt travel with belt load to provide a determination of the weight of the material that has passed over

the scale.

5.2.1. SPEED MEASUREMENT. - A belt-conveyor scale shall be

equipped with a belt speed or travel sensor that will accurately sense

the belt speed or travel whether the belt is empty or loaded.

5.2.2. ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS.- An adjustable component that can affect the performance of the device (except as prescribed in

S.3.1) shall be held securely in adjustment and shall not be capable of adjustment without breaking a security means.

145
Specifications and Tolerances

S.2.3. OVERLOAD PROTECTION.- The load receiving elements shall be

equipped with means for overload protection of not less than 150

percent of rated capacity. The accuracy of the scale in its normal

loading range, shall not be affected by overloading.

5.3. ZERO SETTING

5.3.1. DESIGN OF ZERO SETTING MECHANISM.- The range of the zero-setting mechanism shall be not greater than 2 percent of the

rated capacity of the scale without breaking the security means. Automatic and semi-automatic zero-setting mechanisms shall be so constructed that the resetting operation is carried out only after a whole number of belt revolutions and the completion of the setting or the whole operation is indicated.

5.3.2. SENSITIVITY AT ZERO LOAD. (For Type Evaluation) - When

a system is operated for a time period equal to the time required to

deliver the minimum test load and with a test load calculated to

indicate two scale divisions applied directly to the weighing element,

the totalizer shall advance not less than one nor more than three scale

divisions. An alternative test of equivalent sensitivity, as specified by

the manufacturer, shall also be acceptable. (Nonretroactive as of

January 1, 1986.)

5.4. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.- A belt-conveyor scale shall be marked

with the following: (See Also G-S.l.)

(a) The rated capacity in units of weight per hour (minimum and

maximum)

(b) The value of the scale division.

(c) The belt speed in terms of feet or meters per minute at which

the belt will deliver the rated capacity.

(d) The load in terms of pounds per foot or kilograms per meter.

(e) The operational temperature range if other than 14 °F to 104 °F.

* (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.)

N. NOTES

N.l. GENERAL.- Belt-conveyor scales are capable of weighing bulk material accurately (see tolerances). However, their performance can be

detrimentally affected by the conditions of the installation. (See User Requirements)

146
Specifications and Tolerances

N.l.l. OFFICIAL TEST.- An Official test of a belt-conveyor scale system shall be a materials test. N.1.2. SIMULATED TEST.- Simulated loading conditions as recommended by the manufacturer and approved by the certifying

authority may be used to properly monitor the system operational

performance between official tests, but shall not be used for official certification. N.2. CONDITIONS OF TESTS.- A belt-conveyor scale shall be tested after

it is installed on the conveyor system with which it is to be used and

under such environmental conditions as may normally be expected. It shall be tested at normal use capacity and may be tested at any other rate of

flow that may be used at the installation. Each test shall last long enough

to deliver a load of at least 1000 scale divisions and for at least three

revolutions of the belt. In addition, one of the following must be met,

whichever is applicable:

(a) Ten minutes operation, or

(b) A normal weighment, which need not exceed 1000 tons. N.3. TEST PROCEDURES

N.3.1. ZERO LOAD TEST.- If a belt -conveyor scale system has been

idle for a period of two hours or more, the system shall be run for not

less than 30 minutes when the temperature is above 41 °F (5 °C).

When the temperature is below 41 °F, additional warmup time,

depending upon conditions, is required before beginning the zero load

tests. The totalizer indication shall not change more than _+ one scale

division when the instrument is operated at no load for a period of time equivalent to that required to deliver the minimum totalized load

of 1000 scale divisions. The zero load test shall be conducted over a whole number of belt revolutions of not less than three revolutions or 10 minutes operation,

whichever is greater.

The totalizer shall not change more than three scale divisions during

any portion of the zero test. N.3.2. MATERIAL TEST. - Use bulk material, preferably that material

for which the device is normally used. Either pass a preweighed

quantity of material that has been weighed on a certified reference

scale over the belt-conveyor scale in a manner as similar as feasible to actual loading conditions, or statically weigh on a certified reference

scale all material that has passed over the belt-conveyor scale. Means

for weighing the material test load will depend on the capacity of the

belt-conveyor scale and availability of a suitable scale for the test. Where practicable, the substitution method of weighing should be used. To assure that the test load is accurately weighed and determined, the

following precautions shall be observed:

147
Specifications and Tolerances

(a) The containers, whether they are railroad cars, trucks, or boxes, must not leak and shall not be overloaded to the

point that material will be lost.

(b) The actual empty or tare weight of the containers shall be

determined at the time of the test. Stencilled tare weight

of railway cars or trucks shall not be used. Gross and tare weights shall be determined on the same certified refer- ence scale.

(c) When a pre-weighed test load is passed over the scale, the

belt loading hopper shall be examined before and after the

test to assure that the hopper is empty and that only the

material of the test load has passed over the scale.

(d) When a railway track scale is used as a certified refer- ence scale to weigh the test load, not more than 48 hours

shall elapse between the test on the belt-conveyor scale and the determination of the weight of the test load. When other scales are used, the elapsed time shall be not more than eight hours.

(e) The test shall not be conducted if the weight of the test load has been affected by environmental conditions.

(f) A minimum of three individual tests shall be conducted

for each official verification. The performance of the

scale is not to be determined by averaging the results of

the individual tests., but by successfully passng each test. N.3.3. SIMULATED LOAD TESTS. - Simulated load tests are to be

conducted as required by the certifying authority between material

tests to monitor the system's operational performance, but shall not be

used for official certification. Such tests shall consist of placing a weight on the belt-conveyor scale over the weight sensing element to simulate, as closely as possible, the load that the scale is designed to weigh. A simulated test shall be comprised of at least five consecutive test runs and the results shall repeat within 0.1%. One of the following tests, in accordance with the recommendation of the

belt-conveyor scale manufacturer, shall be used:

(a) CHAIN TEST. - A suitable test chain of the free-roller or wheel type shall be used. Calibration of the weight per

unit of length for use in all tests must be factored on the

basis of scale calibration to material and simulated test

results. The test chain should extend across all scale

rollers and, in addition, not less than two idler rollers before and beyond the scale. It may be connected to a

stationary part of the structure and allowed to ride on the

belt over the scale. The length of belt that has passed

over the scale during the test must be accurately

measured.

148
Specifications and Tolerances

(b) KNOWN WEIGHT TEST. - An alternative simulated load

test may be authorized by the certifying authority between

materials tests on scales with a rated capacity of 100

tons per hour or less provided that system performance

can be verified. Such a test shall consist of placing test weights on the weigh bridge structure over the weight

sensing element to accurately simulate the load that the

scale is designed to weigh.

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. TOLERANCE VALUES. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances on

materials tests shall be + 0.5 percent (1/200) of test load.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES, REPEATABILITY TESTS. - The variation in the

values obtained during the conduct of materials tests shall not be greater

than 0.25 percent (1/400) of test load.

T.3. REFERENCE STANDARDS.- Verifying the accuracy of the certified reference scale is the responsibility of the certifying authority. Where

practical, the substitution method of testing shall be used. The maximum

error shall not exceed 0.1% on any test load.

T.4. INFLUENCE FACTORS. - The following factors are applicable to tests conducted under controlled conditions only, provided that

(a) types of devices approved prior to January 1, 1986 and

manufactured prior to January 1, 1988, need not meet the

requirements of this Section;

(b) new types of devices submitted for approval after January 1, 1986 shall comply with the requirements of the Section; and

(c) all devices manufactured after January 1, 1988 shall comply with

the requirements of this Section.

T.4.1. TEMPERATURE. - Devices shall satisfy the tolerance

requirements at all temperatures from 14 °F to 104 "F inclusive. T.4.1.1. EFFECT ON ZERO-LOAD BALANCE. - The zero-load

indication shall not change by more than 0.07% of the rated

capacity of the scale (without the belt) for a change in temperature of 18 °F (10 °C) at a rate not to exceed 9 °F

(5 °C) per hour.

T.4.2. POWER SUPPLY, VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY. - A belt- conveyor scale system shall satisfy the tolerance requirements over a range of 100 to 130 volts or 200 to 250 volts as appropriate and over

a frequency range of 59.5 to 60.5 Hz.

149
Specifications and Tolerances

T.4.3. RADIATED INTERFERENCE. - A belt-conveyor scale system

shall satisfy the tolerance requirements when the following equipment

is operated at a distance of one meter or more from any operational

part of the system.

460-MHz, 4-watt, hand-held communicator

27-MHz, 5-watt, hand-held communicator

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. USE REQUIREMENTS.- A belt-conveyor scale system shall be

operated between 35 and 100 percent of its rated capacity.

UR.1.1. MINIMUM TOTALIZED LOAD. - Delivered quantities of less than the minimum test load shall not be considered a valid weighment.

UR.1.2. SECURITY MEANS. - When a security means has been

broken, it shall be reported to the certifying authority.

UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTSUR.2.1. PROTECTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.- The

indicating elements, the lever system or load cells, and the load

receiving element of a belt-conveyor scale shall be adequately pro- tected from environmental factors such as wind, moisture, dust,

weather, and radio frequency interference (RFI) and electromagnetic

interference (EMI) that may adversely affect the operation or performance of the device.

UR.2.2. CONVEYOR INSTALLATION.- The design and installation of the conveyor leading to and from the belt-conveyor scale are critical with respect to scale performance. The conveyor may be horizontal or inclined but, if inclined, the angle shall be such that slippage of material along the belt does not occur. Installation shall be in accordance with the scale manufacturer's instructions and the following:

(a) A belt-conveyor scale shall be so installed that neither its performance nor operation will be adversely affected by

any characteristic of the foundation, supports, or any

other equipment.

(b) All live portions of the scale shall be protected by

appropriate guard devices to prevent accidental

interference with the weighing operation.

(c) Suitable protection shall be provided for storage of any

simulated load equipment.

150
Specifications and Tolerances

UR.2.2.1. FOR SCALES NOT INSTALLED BY THE

MANUFACTURER. - Unless the scale is installed in a short conveyor,

designed and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale manufacturer's specifications, the conveyor shall comply with the

following minimum requirements:

(a) If the belt length is such that a take-up device is required, this device shall be of the counter-weighted type

for either vertical or horizontal travel.

(b) The scale shall be so installed that the first weigh idler of the scale is at least 20 feet or 5 idler spaces, whichever is greater, from loading point, skirting, head or

tail pulley, or convex curve in the conveyor. Any training

idler shall be located at least 60 feet from the center line of the weigh span of the scale.

(c) There shall be no concave curve in the conveyor between

the scale and the loading point. A concave curve beyond

the scale shall start no closer than 40 feet from the

scale.

(d) There shall be no tripper nor movable head pulleys in the conveyor.

(e) The conveyor shall be no longer than 1000 feet nor

shorter than 40 feet from head to tail pulley. (Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986).

(f) Conveyor stringers at the scale and for not less than 20

feet before and beyond the scale shall be continuous or securely joined and of sufficient size and so supported as

to eliminate relative deflection between the scale and

adjacent idlers when under load. The conveyor stringers

should be so designed that the deflection between any two

adjacent idlers within the weigh area does not exceed

0.025 inch under load.

(g) The scale area and 4 idlers on both ends of the scale

shall be of a contrasting color, or other suitable means

shall be used to distinguish the scale from the remainder

of the conveyor installation, and the scale shall be readily

accessible.

(h) Conveyor belting shall be no heavier than is required for normal use. Under any load, the belt shall contact the center or horizontal portion of the idlers. Splices shall not cause any undue disturbance in scale operation (see N.3.).

151
Specifications and Tolerances

(i) The conveyor loading mechanism shall be designed to provide uniform belt loading. The distance from the loading point to the scale shall allow for adequate settling

time of the material on the belt before it is weighed.

Feeding mechanisms shall have a positive closing or stopping action so that material leakage does not occur. Feeders shall provide an even flow over the scale through

the full range of scale operation. Impact idlers shall be

provided under each loading point to prevent deflection of the belt while material is loaded.

(j) The belt shall not extend beyond the edge of the idler roller in the weighing area. UR.2.3. MATERIAL TEST. - A belt-conveyor scale shall be installed so that a material test can be conveniently conducted. (Nonretroactive

as of January 1, 1981.)

UR.2.4. BELT TRAVEL (SPEED).- The belt travel sensor shall be

positioned to accurately represent the travel of the belt over the scale

for all flow rates between the minimum and maximum values and shall be designed and installed to prevent slip. UR.3. USE REQUIREMENTS

UR.3.1. LOADING.- The feed of material to the scale shall be

controlled to assure that, during normal operation, the material flow is in accordance with manufacturer's recommendation for rated capacity.

UR.3.2. MAINTENANCE.- Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be

maintained and serviced in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and the following.

(a) The scale and area surrounding the scale shall be kept

clean of debris or other foreign material that can

detrimentally affect the performance of the system.

(b) Simulated load tests shall be conducted at periodic

intervals between official tests so that there is reasonable assurance that the device is performing correctly. The

action to be taken as a result of simulated load test is as follows:

if the error is less than 0.4 percent, no adjustment is to be made;

if the error is 0.4 percentat least but not more than 0.6 percent, adjustment may be made if the certifying

authority is notified;

152
Specifications and Tolerances

if the error is greater than 0.6 percent but not more

than 0.75 percent, adjustments shall be made by a competent service person and the certifying authority

notified. After such an adjustment, if the results of a subsequent test require adjustment in the same direction, an official test shall be conducted;

if the error is greater than 0.75 percent, an official test

is required.

(c) Scale Alignment.- "Wire line" alignment checks shall be

considered when conveyor work is performed in the scale area or in accordance with manufacturer's recommendation. A materials test is required after any realignment.

(d) Simulated Load Equipment.- Simulated load equipment

shall be clean and properly maintained.

(e) Records.- In order to develop a history of scale performance, records of calibration and maintenance,

including conveyor alignment, shall be maintained on site for no less than the last three years. Copies of any

report as a result of a test or repair shall be mailed to the certifying authority as required. The current date and

correction factor(s) for simulated load equipment shall be

recorded and maintained in the scale cabinet.

UR.4. COMPLIANCE.- Prior to initial verification, the scale manufacturer or

installer shall certify to the owner that the scale meets code requirements.

Prior to initial verification and each subsequent verification, the scale owner

or his agent shall notify the certifying authority in writing that the

belt-conveyor scale system is in compliance with this specification and ready

for material testing.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

auxiliary indicator. Any indicator other than the master weight totalizer indicating the weight of material that has been determined by scale.

belt conveyor. An endless moving belt for transporting material from place

to place.

belt-conveyor scale. A device that employs a weighing element in contact

with a belt to sense the weight of the material being conveyed and

the speed (travel) of the material, and integrates these values to produce total delivered weight.

certified reference scale. The scale used to determine the weight of material used in an official test. certifying authority. The jurisdiction(s) responsible for certifying the accuracy of belt-conveyor scales.

153
Specifications and Tolerances

chart recorder. An element used with a belt-conveyor scale that continuously

records the rate-of-flow of bulk material over the scale. concave curve. A change in the angle of inclination of a belt conveyor

where the center of the curve is above the conveyor. convex curve. A change in the angle of inclination of a belt conveyor

where the center of the curve is below the conveyor. conveyor stringers. Support members for the conveyor on which the scale and idlers are mounted.

feeding mechanism. The means used to deposit material to be weighed on

the belt conveyor. head pulley. The pulley at the discharge end of the belt conveyor. The

power drive to drive the belt is generally applied to the head pulley.

idler space. The center-to-center distance between idler rollers measured

parallel to the belt. idlers or idler rollers. Freely turning cylinders mounted on a frame to support the conveyor belt. For a flat belt the idlers consist of one or more horizontal cylinders transverse to the direction of belt travel. For a troughed belt, the idlers consist of one or more horizontal

cylinders and one or more cylinders at an angle to the horizontal to

lift the sides of the belt to form a trough.

loading point. The location at which material to be conveyed is applied to the conveyor. master weight totalizer. An indicating element used with a belt conveyor

scale to indicate the weight of material that was passed over the

scale. The master weight totalizer is a primary indicating element of the belt-conveyor scale. materials test. The test of a belt-conveyor scale using material (preferably that for which the device is normally used) as a reference standard,

the weight of the material being determined on a certified reference

scale. minimum delivery. The least amount of weight that is to be delivered as a

single weighment by a belt-conveyor scale system in normal use. minimum totalized load. The least amount of weight for which the scale is considered to be performing accurately.

rated scale capacity. That value representing the weight that can be

delivered by the device in one hour.

154
Specifications and Tolerances

recording element. A device used to print on tickets, tape, or other papers, the weight of material that has passed over the scale in a given

time. It may also be a primary element.

security means. A method used to prevent access by other than qualified

personnel, or to indicate that access has been made to certain parts

of a scale that affect the performance of the device.

simulated test. A test using artificial means of loading the scale to determine the performance of a belt-conveyor scale.

skirting. Stationary side boards or sections of belt conveyor attached to the conveyor support frame or other stationary support to prevent the

bulk material from falling off the side of the belt.

tail pulley. The pulley at the opposite end of the conveyor from the head

pulley.

take-up. A device to provide sufficient tension in a conveyor belt that the

belt will be positively driven by the drive pulley. A counter-weighted

take-up consists of a pulley free to move in either the vertical or horizontal direction with dead weights applied to the pulley shaft to provide the tension required.

test chain. A device used for simulated tests consisting of a series of

rollers or wheels linked together in such a manner as to assure uniformity of weight and freedom of motion to reduce wear, with

consequent loss of weight, to a minimum.

training idlers. Idlers of special design or mounting intended to shift the belt sideways on the conveyor to assure the belt is centered on the

conveying idlers. tripper. A device for unloading a belt conveyor at a point between the

loading point and the head pulley.

weigh ment. A single complete weighing operation.

wing pulley. A pulley made of widely spaced metal bars in order to set up a

vibration to shake loose material off the underside (return side) of the

belt.

155
Specifications and Tolerances

APPENDIX C

ELECTRONIC CASH REGISTERS (ECR)

INTERFACED WITH RETAIL MOTOR FUEL DISPENSERS

GENERAL INFORMATION

Lab Test: Field Test: Date:

Location:

SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Operating Manual

Schematics Submitted: Yes No Submitted: Yes No

MANUFACTURER INFORMATION

Company Name:

Model of ECR:

Address:

Telephone:

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Electronic Cash Register:

INTERFACE ELEMENTS

Retail Mstor Fuel Dispensers:

Electronic Weighing Element:

Comments:

Stand Alone:

Central Processing Unit (CPU):

Modular Components:

Microprocessor Technology:

UPC Scanning System:

Approved: Yes No

Manufacturer :_

" Model :_

Approved: Yes__No_

Manufacturer :

" Model:

156
Specifications and Tolerances

ELECTRONIC CASH REGISTERS (ECR)

INTERFACED WITH RETAIL MOTOR FUEL DISPENSERS

Examination Criteria

Identification G-S.1. Each cash register must comply with the appropriate Handbook 44

identification requirements, and be permanently and clearly marked on a

surface visible after installation and in the normal operating condition.

Complies?

1. The name, initials, or trademark of the

manufacturer. A remote display

displaying volume information is required to have the manufacturer's name or trademark and model

designation. Yes No N/A

2. The manufacturer's designation that

positively identifies the type or

design. Yes No N/A

3. A nonrepetitive serial number. A

remote display is not required to have

a serial number because typically these

devices do not have any electronics

used in analyzing the signal received

from the measuring element. Similarly,

other elements of a system e.g. a

printer, keyboard, cash drawer etc., which cannot be operated as a

stand-alone unit or are not intended to be interfaced in a system of other

models, are not required to have a

serial number. Only the electronic

element that controls the system is to be marked with a serial number. Yes No N/A

4. The marking must be visible after

installation. Equipment is to be marked on a surface that is an integral part of the

chassis and is visible after installation

in a normal manner. If the information

required is located on the back of the

device, the same information must also appear on the side, front, or top. It may be installed on the housing, if the

housing can be fitted with a security

seal. The bottom of a device is not an

acceptable surface. Yes No N/A

157
Specifications and Tolerances

Complies?

5. The marking must be permanent. It may be a metal or plastic plate

attached with pop rivets or adhesive or other means. Removable bolts or screws are not permitted. A foil plate

may be used provided it is destroyed in any attempt to remove it. Additionally,

the printing on a foil plate must be

easily read and not easily obliterated

by rubbing with a relatively soft object

(e.g., wood of a pencil). Yes No N/A

NOTE: A location under a cover or

inside a panel door is not acceptable.

Visibility may be achieved by placing a duplicate serial number badge on the

front, side, or top of the ECR. This

badge may contain only the serial number if the other information is visible elsewhere on the ECR.

Note: (This part may be changed

dependent on Conference action)

Indicating and Recording Elements/General G-S.5.1.

1. Price Lookup Codes (PLUs)

a. PLUs must operate only with the

appropriate information; e.g., if a PLU activates a dispenser

transaction, a volume input must

be required before a price is computed and recorded. Yes No N/A

b. Other PLUs must not interact

with dispenser information. Yes No N/A

2. Manual volume entries other than

pre-set amounts are not permitted. Yes No N/A

3. Incorrect entries shall be signaled by an audio and/or visual signal. Yes No N/A

4. A dispenser verification display (e.g., segment test) shall not be recorded by

the ECR. Yes No N/A

158
Specifications and Tolerances

Complies?

5. Power Interruptions. Test first with a power failure to the ECR alone, then a power failure to the dispenser alone,

and, finally, a power failure to both

components simultaneously. When a power interruption occurs the register

must do one of the following:

a. Continue to function and perform

Note: (All indicated or recorded

information must be correct).

NOTE: The criteria for a power loss to a fuel dispenser are given in the

retail motor fuel dispenser checklist.

6. An ECR shall be able to record all quantities, unit prices, and total prices up to the capacity of the dispenser.

When the capacity of the quantity or

total price is exceeded and the display

"rolls over" the ECR shall not record

the "rolled over" value and shall either record the correct total volume and

total price, or give an error

indication. Yes No N/A

7. A cash register shall not print the values from a dispenser until the

delivery has been completed and

dispenser turned off. Yes No N/A

8. Items Not Measured or Weighed. These

items may be split-priced according to general marketing practices. Acceptable

price extensions will depend on

individual State policies. Normally, the

single item price will be the multiple

item price divided by the number of items and rounded up to the next

higher cent. If the single item price

is different than the price that would

be computed as described, the price per item must be posted at the

display. (SEE FPLA value comparison

correctly either automatically or manually. Yes No N/A

b. The transaction is halted and

cannot be continued when power

returns. Yes No N/A

159
Specifications and Tolerances

considerations and the Model Unit

Pricing Regulation.) Suggested multiple

item prices for test procedures are

3/$1.00 and 7/$1.00. The single item

prices may be recorded as $.34, $.34,

$.32 or $.34, $.33, $.33 and $.15, $.15, $.15, $.15, $.15. $.15, $.10 or $.15, $.14,

$.14, $.15, $.14, $.14, $.14,

respectively.

Price calculations for multiple item

priced commodities shall be computed

correctly as described above for:

a. Prices entered via PLUs.

b. Prices entered through the keyboard

Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems G-S.5.1. A variety of sales receipt formats are acceptable provided they are clear and understandable. Guidelines are provided to assist manufacturers and

weights and measures officials in determining the acceptability of formats. Symbols other than those given below may be acceptable but

they will be reviewed on a case by case basis. More descriptive symbols

and terms are acceptable.

1. The unit of measure shall be clearly

defined. Acceptable symbols for units

are: Gallon, GAL, G, Liter, and L. Upper or lower case is optional except

a lower case "1" provided only if it does not look like a "1", e.g., a script

£.

The unit of measure may be defined

with either the quantity value; e.g., 10.000 GAL, or with the unit price;

e.g., $1.119/Gal. It is not required

with both. Yes No N/A

2. Acceptable designations of the unit price are: "@ w as a prefix to the unit price value, an upper or lower case "X" or slash between the quantity and

unit price, $/G, PPG (price per gallon),

PPL (price per liter), UP (unit price),

P/G, Price/Vol, PPU (price per unit), DOL/GAL Yes No N/A

Complies?

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

160
Specifications and Tolerances

Complies?

3. The total fuel price must be clearly

distinguished from the other

information in the fuel transaction. To

identify the total fuel sale price, one

of the following methods may be used:

a. decimal point in the proper

dollar position, e.g., XX. XX. If a dollar sign is not used, there

must be at least one column

offset of the least significant

digit in recorded information,

other than the sale price.

b. the words gas, diesel, or other

product designation may be used

with the word "SALE"; e.g., "FUEL SALE" or "GAS SALE",

or the product identification followed by the sale price; e.g., GAS 20.00. Yes No N/A

4. When a service station cash

register/console is capable of recording

sales transactions of other products,

the fuel transaction must be clearly

distinguished from the other

transactions. A "product class" must

be associated with the fuel transaction

as well as the other transactions. In terms of format, the fuel transactions

may be separated (blocked-off) from

the other transactions by blank lines or other designations above and below the

fuel transactions or by at least one column off-set between the sales price

and the other recorded information.

The product class for fuel need only

distinguish the fuel from other items.

The product name, code number

(similar to a price look up code), or a hose or pump number are acceptable

designations of product class. Yes No N/A

161
Specifications and Tolerances

Example 1 Example 2 Meat

Soda

3.89

2.99

Meat

Soda

Gas 5.080 G @

3.89

2.99

1.000

Gas 5.080G § 1.000

5.08

5.08

Cig 1.00

Cig 1.00

NOTE: Product identification, date, and

change due are not required by Handbook 44

to be printed on a printed ticket or a cash

register receipt. The technical subcommittee

recommends that Handbook 44 be amended

to require product identification. NOTE: These requirements apply to recorded representations resulting from a

final sale. They do not apply to deposit

slips for prepay transactions, etc.

162
Specifications and Tolerances

TESTING IN THE PRESENCE OF RFI SOURCES

Equipment Required

One 460-MHz (commercial band) 4-watt, hand-held communicator.

One 27-MHz (citizens band) 5-watt, hand-held communicator.

Test

1. The testing is to be performed with the communicator antenna

positioned one meter from the electronic equipment.

2. Operate the communicators individually, in accordance with FCC

regulations, in the transmit mode while the device is in operation and

after the completion of a delivery.

3. Scan the electronic equipment and interconnecting cables by

repositioning the communicator, taking care to maintain a distance of one meter.

4. During the steps outlined in 2 and 3, evaluate the device performance.

The acceptable response is a change in the performance not greater than

two cubic inches per five gallons and all indicated values must be correct.

FIELD EVALUATION AND PERMANENCE TESTS FOR MEASURING SYSTEMS

General

Measuring systems, devices, and elements whose performance may change in use over time are generally subject to field evaluation and permanence

tests. Field Evaluation

Certain types of devices and elements are subject only to a subsequent field evaluation after the initial field or laboratory evaluation. These are:

1. electronic indicating elements

2. consoles

3. recording elements

4. electronic cash registers

5. data processing units A subsequent field examination is conducted after 20 and before 30 days of

use in a normal installation. During this interval the device must not be

serviced and must continually perform and function correctly.

163
Specifications and Tolerances

Permanence Tests Permanence tests are conducted on equipment such as a complete measuring

system or only a measuring element (meter). The performance of the device

is first determined during an initial field evaluation.

The minimum tests to be conducted are as follows: On retail motor fuel dispensers - five full flow and five slow flow tests of 5 gallons each

five full flow and five slow flow tests of 10 gallons each

On other metering systems; e.g., vehicle tank or loading rack - three full flow tests three intermediate flow tests three slow flow tests three vapor or air elimination tests. Subsequent field evaluation tests consisting of the same minimum tests as

outlined above are to be conducted as follows: During the period between the initial tests and the subsequent tests, the equipment under test is not to be serviced or adjusted.

The subsequent tests on a retail motor fuel dispenser shall be

conducted following the initial test after a period of 20 days in use and at least 20 000 gallons of product have been measured.

The subsequent tests on other metering systems shall be conducted

following the initial test after a period of 20 days in use and an amount of product at least equal to the value obtained when

multiplying the maximum rated flow rate of the equipment under test

in terms of gallons per minute by 2000 has been measured.

Example: Meter flow rate - 25 to 125 gpm; 125 x 2000 = 250 000 gallons.

The results of all of these tests must be within the applicable

acceptance tolerances.

164
Specifications and Tolerances

APPENDIX D

EXAMINATION CHECKLIST - TAXIMETERS

General Code Requirements

G-S.l . Identification Complies?

All equipment is clearly and permanently

marked (requires the use of a tool in order

to remove) on an ext erior surface visible after installation with the following

information:

1. Name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer. Yes No N/A

2. The manufacturer's designation that

positively identifies the pattern or

design. Yes No N/A

3. The nonrepetitive serial number. Yes No N/A

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud

Electronic meters with multi-rate capabilities.

a. When used as a single-rate

meter the other rates are inoperable or are all the same

rate? There is only one rate

available under all conditions of

use. Yes No N/A

b. When used as a multi-rate

meter, except shared-ride

meters, it cannot be changed

from one rate to another after the meter has been activated

(i.e., put in hired - time on - or time off position). The rate cannot be changed once the fare cycle has been started. Yes No N/A

Short Term Power Interruptions

After a momentary (maximum of ten

seconds) power interruption, the fare

indication (fare and extras, if applicable) should either return to zero or display the

fare indications displayed before the power

failure assuming no change (a one-drop

165
Specifications and Tolerances

increase in fare is permitted if a drop was

anticipated in the period of interruption). Test method: simulate power failure by

pulling plug to power supply. Keep power

interruption ten seconds or less. Restore power to device and record what happens.

Repeat using off switch on power supply.

Power Pluff

a. Device returns to zero.

b. Device returns to previously

displayed fare (within limits as

discussed).

c. Device displays a meaningless

display or error signal that requires operator intervention.

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

d. Device

fare. displays an incorrect

Does Not No N/A

Comply

Power Switch

a. Device returns to zero.

b. Device returns to previously

displayed fare (within limits as

discussed).

c. Device displays a meaningless

display or error signal that requires operator intervention.

d. Device displays an incorrect

value.

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Does Not No N/A

Comply

Long Term Power Interruptions

After a power interruption of more than ten

seconds, the fare indication (fare and extras

if applicable) shall return to zero or give an

error indication.

166
Specifications and Tolerances

Power Plug

a. Device returns to zero.

b. Device returns to previously

displayed fare.

Device displays a meaningless

display or error signal that requires operator intervention.

Device displays some other fare.

Yes No N/A

Does Not No N/A

Comply

Yes No N/A

Does Not No N/A

Comply

Power Switch

a. Device returns to zero.

b. Device returns to previously

displayed fare

c. Device displays a meaningless

display or error signal that requires operator intervention.

Yes No N/A

Does Not No N/A

Comply

Yes No N/A

d. Device displays some other fare. Does Not No N/A

Comply

G-S.3. Permanence

Equipment is of such materials, design, and construction that, under

normal service conditions:

a. Accuracy will be maintained, Yes No N/A

b. operating parts will continue to function as intended, and Yes No N/A

c. adjustments will remain

reasonably permanent. Yes No N/A

After preliminary laboratory evaluation, all devices must undergo a field evaluation. A field evaluation consists of an initial set of performance tests at the start of the evaluation and a second set of performance tests conducted 50 to 60 days after the initial tests. During this interval no

adjustments or maintenance can be performed on the meter. Additional

tests may be conducted during this interval. The results of all tests must

be within acceptance tolerances.

167
Specifications /jtkI Tolerances

O-S.4. Interchange or Reversal of Parts Does not affecl the accuracy of the device^ Yes No n/a

(J S. f*. 1 . Indicating find Recording Moments

Appropriate In design and adequate amount*

1. Arc; the maximum money values and

Quantity Indications and unit prices

appropriate for the Intended use? Yes No n/a

2. Clear, definite, and aeeurate. Yes No N/A x Easily rend under normal operating

conditions? a i 1 Indicators! annunciators)

and legends arc readable in the dark at distances up to one meter with no

lighting other than thai supplied by the devlce« Yes No N/A

4. Totalizer values aeeurate to the nearCSl minimum interval. Yes No N/A

5. Symbols for decimal |>oint clearly

Identify the decimal position. (Generally

acceptable symbols fire dots, small commas, or x.)

(i-S .5.2. Crnduat ions, Indicat ions, and Recorded

Represented ions Q-S.5.2.1. And I ( ig Suitable graduations and an indicator designed to advance continuously? Yes No n/a

Q BtS«2>3i Size and Character

1. Corresponding graduations and units uniform In size and character Yes No n/a

2. Subordinate ['jadiia I ions, indications, and

recorded representations appropriately

portrayed or designated! STes Wo n/a

Q-B.S.2.4. Values Defined Are the values adequately defined by a sufficient number of figures, words, symbols,

or combinations thereof, uniformly placed,

and conducive to reading accuracy? Yes No N/A

L68
Specifications and Tolerances

G-S.5.2.5. Permanence

Graduations, indications, or recorded

representations and their defining figures,

words, and symbols are of such character

that they will not tend easily to become

obliterated or illegible. Yes No N/A

G-S.5.3. Values of Graduated Intervals or Increments Uniform throughout any series. Yes No N/A

G-S.5.4. Repeatability of Indications

When a digital indicator is tested, the

delivered quantity shall be within tolerance

at any point within the range of the

indicated amount. Yes No N/A

G-S.5.6. Recorded Representation

All recorded values are digital (See also UR.3.3.) Yes No N/A

G-S.5.7. Magnified Graduations and Indications

Shall conform to all requirements for graduations and indications. Yes No N/A

G-S.6. Marking, Operational Controls,

Indications, and Features

Shall be clearly and definitely identified. Yes No N/A

G-S.7. Lettering

Required marking and instructions of passenger interest are permanent, distinct,

and easily read. They are readable in the dark at a distance up to one meter from

the device with no lighting other than that

supplied by the device. Yes No N/A

G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment

Is the equipment suitable for intended

service with respect to elements of its design? Yes No N/A

169
Specifications and Tolerances

G-UR.1.2. Environment

Suitable for environment of its intended use, including hostile weather and

electromagnetic and radio frequency

interference. Yes No N/A

Electromagnetic and radio-frequency

interference generated by electromechanical

equipment, portable hand-held radio

transmitters, citizens band transmitting

equipment, the printer, etc. shall not affect accuracy. NCWM/SMA RFI/EMI Field Test Procedures to be used where applicable with

test distance of 15-30 cm from the device

and its components instead of one meter. Taximeter Code Requirements

S.l. Design of Indicating and Recording

Elements and of Recorded Representations

S.l.l. Primary Elements

S.l. 1.1. General

The device is equipped with a primary

indicating element and may also be equipped

with a primary recording element. Yes No N/A

5.1. 2. Advancement of Indicating Elements

Indicating elements are susceptible of

advancement only by the rotation of the

vehicle wheels or by the time mechanism

(except when the meter is being cleared). Yes No N/A

5.1. 3. Visibility of Indications

1. The fare and extras are clearly visible at all times (except when the meter is cleared). All customer indications (fare

and extras) and markings (i.e., monetary signs, dollars, cents, hired,

time-off, etc.) are easily read in the

dark or in bright sunlight from a

distance of 1 meter from the device.

Such indications and markings are

easily read at a distance of 1 meter in total darkness with no other light than

what is supplied by the device. In a

like manner, such indications are also

easily read at a distance of 1 meter

170
Specifications and Tolerances

when the face of the device is illuminated with a 150-watt reflector

floodlight (2750 lumens) from a

distance of 1 meter. Yes No N/A

2. The indications are at least 10 mm

high for the fare and 4 mm high for

all other indications. Yes No N/A

5.1.4. Actuation of Fare-Indicating Mechanism

1. The fare-indicating mechanism is actuated by the distance mechanism

whenever the vehicle is in motion at such a speed (cross-over speed) that

the rate of distance revenue equals or exceeds the time rate. Yes No N/A

2. The fare-indicating mechanism is actuated by the time mechanism

whenever the vehicle speed is less than

the cross-over speed and when the

vehicle is not in motion. Yes No N/A

3. Means are provided for the vehicle

operator to render the time mechanism

either operative or inoperative with

respect to the fare-indicating

mechanism. Yes No N/A

5.1.5. Operating Condition

5.1.5.1. General

1. Whenever the indicating elements of a taximeter are set to indicate a charge

for the hire of the vehicle, the character of the fare indication is clearly shown on the taximeter face. Yes No N/A

2. When a taximeter is cleared, the

indication "not registering", "vacant",

or an equivalent expression is shown. Yes No N/A

5.1.5. 2. Single-Tariff Taximeter

When set to register charges, the indication

"registering", "hired", or an equivalent

expression is shown. Yes No N/A

171
Specifications and Tolerances

S. 1.5.3. Multiple-Tariff Taximeter

When set to register charges, the basis for the particular rate for which it is set is shown. (The indication "registering",

"hired", or an equivalent expression may be

shown for the lowest rate. For any rate other than the lowest, the rate actually

being charged is shown). Yes No N/A

S.l.5.4. Time Not Recording

When the taximeter is set for fare

registration, but with the time mechanism

inoperative, the indication "time not recording" or an equivalent expression

appears. (This indication may replace the

indication specified for a single-rate meter

and for the lowest rate on a multi-rate

meter, but shall be in addition to the

indication specified for the higher rates on a

multi-rate meter.) Yes No N/A

5.1.6. Fare Identification Fare indicators are identified by the word

"fare" or by an equivalent expression. Values

are defined by suitable words or monetary

signs and decimal points (i.e., dollars, cents,

$1.20, etc.). Values defined by words have

a separation between dollars and cents. Yes No N/A

5.1.7. Fares

1. Extras are indicated as a separate item

and are not included in the fare

indication. Manually operated means,

(such as depressing a key) may be

provided to temporarily display the

combined total fare, provided that the

indication returns to the display of separate values within five seconds,

after the means are released.

2. They are identified by the word

"extras" or by an equivalent

expression. Yes No N/A

3. Values are defined by suitable words or monetary signs. Yes No N/A

172
Specifications and Tolerances

S.l.7.1. Nonuse of Extras

If extras are not used, the extras mechanisms are made inoperable or the extras indications are effectively obscured

by permanent means. Yes No N/A

S.1.8. Protection of Indications

Indications of fares and extras are displayed

through a protective glass or other suitable transparent material securely attached to the meter housing. Yes No N/A

S.2. Basis of Fare Calculations

Taximeter fares are calculated upon the

basis of:

1. Distance traveled, Yes No N/A

2. Time elapsed, or Yes No N/A

3. A combination of 1 and 2. Yes No N/A

S.3. Design of Operating Control

S.3.1. Means of Control

Lever-arms, knobs, handles, push buttons, or other convenient and effective means are provided to set the meter mechanism for the desired operating condition and to "clear" the meter. Yes No N/A

S.3.2. Positions of Control

1. For mechanical meters. The several

positions of the control lever knob or handle are mechanically defined.

Displacement from any one of these

positions is sufficiently obstructed that accidental or inadvertent changing of operating condition of the meter is improbable. Yes No N/A

2. For electronic meters. The several

positions of the control lever knob

and/or push button switches are

properly identified. Yes No N/A

173
Specifications and Tolerances

3. Movement of this control to an

operating position immediately following

its movement to the cleared position

or the operation of the push buttons is automatically delayed enough to permit

the meter mechanism to come to complete rest in the cleared position.

5.3.3. Flag

Mechanical Meters. If the operating control

is a lever-arm and flag, the flag is at its highest position when the taximeter is cleared, and in this position, the whole flag

is above the level of the meter housing.

5.3.4. Control for Extras Mechanism

The means provided to actuate the extras mechanism is inoperable whenever the meter

is cleared.

5.4. Interference

There is no interference between the time

and the distance portions of the meter at any speed of operation corresponding to a

vehicle speed faster or slower than the

speed at which the basic rate of distance revenue equals the basic waiting-time rate (cross-over speed). At speeds greater than

the cross-over speed, the registration of the meter in the "hired" condition shall agree

with its performance in the "time not recording" condition within one percent. At

speeds slower than the cross-over speed, the

registration of the meter in the "hired"

condition is within acceptance tolerances for time.

5.5. Provision for Security Seals Adequate provision is made for affixing

security seals to the meter and to other

parts of the meter that affect the accuracy

or indications of the device. The means

provided are readily accessible without

removing or disassembling the meter. To

remove or disconnect the meter, it is necessary to break a security seal.

Conducted by

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Date

174
Education Committee

REPORT OF THE

COMMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

ADMINISTRATION, AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Thomas F. Geiler, Chairman

Sealer of Weights and Measures, Town of Barnstable, MA

REFERENCE KEY

400 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

submitted its report to the 70th Annual Meeting of the National Conference

on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report consisted of the Interim

Report as offered in the Conference Announcement and as amended by

Addendum Sheets developed during the Annual Meeting.

The Reference key number and title of the voting item are identified in bold face print on Table A. All other items are informational and required no formal action of the membership.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS

Reference Key Title of Item Number

401 National Weights and Measures Week

402-1 Reports from Regional Education Committees

402-2 Directors Roundtables

403 Report to the NCWM Executive Committee

404-1 Status Report, Training Program

404-2 Uniform Administrative Procedures for Certification of Weights and Measures Officials

After the one voting item was adopted, the Report was adopted in its entirety by a hand vote of the membership.

175
Education Committee

VOTING ITEM

Formal action (vote) of the NCWM was requested on the following item:

404-2 Uniform Administrative Procedures for Certification of Weights

and Measures Officials

This item was adopted (State Representatives 44 Yea; 0 Nay: Delegates 87 Yea; 0 Nay).

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS FOLLOW IN NUMERICAL ORDER.

401 NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

Peggy Adams, Co-Chairman of National Weights and Measures Week,

reported that a permanent handbook to assist weights and measures officials

in planning events for the week was published as NCWM Publication #7.

Weights and Measures coordinators received the publication in time to plan

1985 activities. Arrangements are being made to coordinate the 1986 National Weights and

Measures Week activities with the 150th anniversary celebration of the Office of Weights and Measures. Although the attempt to obtain a presidential proclamation for weights and measures week 1985 was unsuccessful, efforts will continue for next year. A slide presentation and narrative for weights and measures speaking

engagements will be completed soon by Peggy Adams.

The Committee would like to thank industry for its participation in and

support of Weights and Measures Week 1985. REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTIVITIES

402-1 REPORTS FROM REGIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEES

The committee reviewed the following reports:

1. The final report of the Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs Committee to the Western Weights and Measures Association

(September 1984)

2. The final report of the Education Committee to the 39th Annual

Conference of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (October 28 -November 1, 1984).

176
Education Committee

3. The final report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs to the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association

(April 1985).

The Committee agreed to include in its report, as an informational item, a copy of a document entitled "Professionalism in Weights and Measures" that was an attachment to the Western Education Committee's report (see

Appendix A). This document contains guidance to weights and measures

officials on how to maintain a professional image when interacting with the

public.

402-2 DIRECTORS ROUNDTABLES

The four regional weights and measures associations have held Directors

Roundtables at their annual meetings. The Committee has received

information indicating that all associations have been pleased with the

results of the roundtables and plan to continue to hold them. The Committee

encourages this activity and requests that participants write summaries of any discussions that might be of national interest and submit them to the Committee for appropriate distribution.

403 REPORT TO THE NCWM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

In a joint meeting with the NCWM Executive Committee, the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs announced the publication

of the first training module developed for the National Training Program:

Module 27, "Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems." The

Committee described its plans to distribute one complimentary copy of the

module to each of the 50 States. To make it possible for the States to obtain additional copies or for industry and other interested groups to obtain

copies of the module, the Education Committee recommended that the

NCWM make arrangements to sell copies of Module 27 and future modules

at a cost calculated to recover the material and labor costs associated with

module production. The Committee estimated that the cost of issuing most

of the modules on device examination would be about $50 ($20 for each

Inspector's Manual, $30 for the Instructor's Manual). It was suggested that Module 27, which is one of the shorter courses, be offered for sale at a

cost of $10 for each Inspector's Manual and $15 for each Instructor's Manual. (The higher cost of the Instructor's Manual results from the cost of

the slides contained in the manual.)

The Committee reported that it was working on procedures to provide for the certification by the NCWM of officials who successfully complete device

or package checking training in accordance with the NCWM's training

modules. The procedures would include provisions to permit representatives

of the Education Committee to audit the training programs of States

participating in the certification program to determine if they meet program

requirements. It was explained that this activity was separate from the more comprehensive program evaluation activity carried out by the

Committee in the past. The Committee said that it hopes to resume

program evaluation in the future.

177
Education Committee

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

404-1 STATUS REPORT

The following represents the status of all training modules under

development as of July 1985. Module 1 , Mechanical Retail Computing Scales - The module has been

revised to reflect changes in the Handbook 44 new Scales Code that will go

into effect on January 1, 1986. Issuance of the module is scheduled for November 1985. Module 2 , Electronic Retail Computing Scales - This module was revised to conform to the new Scales Code. The module was field tested by

Connecticut and Nebraska and reviewed by the NCWM S<5cT Committee. It

is scheduled for issuance in November 1985. Module 3 , Bench, Counter, and Hanging Scales - A draft of this module was

received from the Working Group. The draft is now being reviewed by

members of the Education Committee.

Module 4, Dormant and Industrial Medium Capacity Scales -The new Working

Group for this module plans to deliver a draft to the Education Committee

in January 1986. Module 5 , Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales - A revised Contractor's draft incorporating new Scales Code information is due September 30, 1985. Module 6 , Monorail Scales and Meat Beams - The module was field tested by

Ohio. A new draft incorporating the changes resulting from the field test and information on the new Scales Code is due at the end of July 1985. Module 7 , Livestock and Animal Scales - A revised Contractor's draft is due

August 30, 1985. Module 8 , Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers and Consoles -Chapters 5-8 of this module were delivered by the Contractor to members of the Education

Committee. The field test of the module is scheduled to begin in August

1985. Module 10 , Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods -A field test of

this module was conducted in New Mexico by OWM staff. The completed

module is due in August 1985. Module 11 , Prescription and Jewelers' Balances - A draft of this module is being prepared by the Working Group.

Module 13, Hopper Scales - A draft of this module is being prepared by the Working Group.

Module 19 , Loading Rack Meters - The Working Group is preparing the first draft of this module.

178
Education Committee

Module 20 , Vehicle Tank Meters - The Contractor's draft of this module is due July 31, 1985. Module 21, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid Meters - A draft is being

prepared by the Working Group.

Module 23 , Weights and Measures Administration - OWM is rewriting portions

of this module.

Module 27 , Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems - Copies of this completed module are available from the NCWM.

Joan Koenig reported that the National Bureau of Standards has approved a

one-year extension of the NCWM's grant with additional funding of $100,000.

She also reported that the NCWM plans to copyright the training modules

being produced under the National Training Program; however, weights and

measures jurisdictions wishing to reproduce the modules for their own

training purposes may request permission to do so from the NCWM. Mrs. Koenig announced that a National Training Program Registry had been

established with the ACT (American College Testing Program) National

Registry Service to provide a permanent record of courses taken by weights

and measures officials under the training program.

404-2 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR

CERTIFICATION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS

In its final report to the 69th National Conference, the Committee included

a draft of administrative procedures for the certification of weights and

measures officials under the National Training Program, prepared by Joseph

Swanson and Marvin Reiger of Alaska. These procedures provide a mechanism by which the NCWM may certify the competence of a weights

and measures official to inspect and test weighing and measuring devices and

to verify the net contents of packaged goods in accordance with the uniform

laws and regulations adopted by the NCWM. As specified in the procedures,

States wishing to participate in the certification program must agree to provide training in accordance with and utilize the training modules published

by the NCWM, provide information on training to the NCWM's National

Training Program Registry, establish a training file on each participant,

make information in these files available to representatives of the Education

Committee upon request, and submit an annual report on training activities to the Committee.

The Committee discussed and modified the draft procedures at its interim

meeting. A revised version is contained in Appendix B. The Committee

recommends adoption of these procedures.

T. F. Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts, Chairman

S. J. Darsey, Florida C. H. Greene, New Mexico

B. R. Niebergall, North Dakota

P. A. Stagg, Louisiana

J. A. Koenig, NBS, Technical Advisor

179
Education Committee

APPENDIX A

PROFESSIONALISM IN WEIGHTS <5c MEASURES

1. Purpose. The purpose of this instruction is to provide guidance for personnel to follow in their behavior with the public.

2. General.

a. Image Building. The single most important image building factor

for Weights and Measures is the individual staff member. It is you, the staff of Weights and Measures, and your behavior

toward the public that is our front line, our first and most

lasting impression on the public. Consequently, everyone you

meet or interact with, publicly or privately, is part of our

public. Whether it's a private individual on the phone, the head

of a company, or a gas pump attendant, all conversations or actions that are part of your daily life are also part of the Weights and Measures image. Each member of the staff must be aware of this and must see his or her actions in this context. You personally represent Weights and Measures in all your

actions.

b. Professional Image Projection. No one will believe that we are doing a good, professional job unless we project that image in every interaction. For example, if you threaten someone with a warning before you have solid proof, you cannot expect the

general public to believe you are acting fairly and in the

interest of equity. You cannot use your position as a member

of the staff of Weights and Measures to harass an obstinate

store manager or gas station attendant. We expect people to cooperate with us because accurate weights and measures are in their best interest. If a store manager shows lack of courtesy

or cooperation, harassment by an inspector will not improve the

situation.

c. Behavior as a Private Person. Remember, too, that your

behavior as a private person reflects on the Weights and

Measures public image. You are in a very special position of having regulatory control over some aspects of the State's economy. You cannot misuse that power for your private,

personal ends. You must separate your professional authority

from your personal life.

d. Servicing the Public. Servicing the public is frequently a great

effort for little immediate reward. There is little thanks given

for dealing with irate phone calls, and inspections tend to blur

into one. A great help in dealing with the public is to remember

that however often you have had to deal with a particular

problem or complaint, it is usually a new problem for the person

180
Education Committee

on the other side. The ability to treat each complaint or

inspection as an individual case, unique for the person complaining or being inspected, helps keep the Weights and Measures image bright and shiny for each individual member of the public who encounters Weights and Measures.

e. Essential Points . The three essential points to remember are:

1) Each staff member should be aware of his or her part in projecting the Weights and Measures image.

2) Our powers are a public trust and not to be used for personal emotional satisfaction.

3) Each case, complaint, or interaction of any sort is a new

experience for each individual member of the general public who

comes in contact with the Weights and Measures Division.

3. Violations . There are many ways in which an inspector can confront someone who has broken a rule, regulation, or the law. However, some

methods of approach are far better than others and will better establish a cooperative relationship with the other person in a regulatory procedure.

Please follow these suggestions:

a. Dealing in Commodities. Of greatest importance, you should not become emotional. Remember that you are dealing in commodities, not in people, with respect to violations. Do not become a "badge happy" inspector, thus forgetting that most

people wish to comply with the law.

b. Commodity or Device in Violation. If in doubt whether or not

there is a violation, contact your supervisor.

c. Courtesy . Be courteous at all times to any person when you are

issuing a warning, etc. Nothing will ever be gained by becoming

emotional and losing your composure. Any objectionable action on your part will be held against you as a State official if the case should go to court.

d. Arguing. Occasionally, the persons to whom you are issuing the

legal notice may become abusive. Let them talk until they have

finished. Do not argue with them . Go about your business and

fill out the form in a courteous and businesslike manner.

181
Education Committee

e. Handling an Abusive Situation . In the event a person becomes

too abusive or unmanageable, simply state that you have no choice except to summon the assistance of the nearest police

officer. Announce that you will take necessary action. However,

as soon as you leave this person when the situation becomes

unmanageable, call your immediate supervisor, relate what has

occurred, and seek advice. If your supervisor is not available, use your best judgment. Normally, if you remain courteous in the face of trying situations, you can get the job done effectively.

Hie person involved will often apologize, at a later date telling

you that they just lost their temper. Your good behavior is usually the key to how a situation will develop or terminate.

After contending with an abusive situation, be sure that you are

self-controlled prior to your next inspection. Do not make the next person pay for any anger toward the predecessor.

f. Summary. In summary, remember that any inspection could

possibly turn into a court case; act accordingly by preparing

clear and concise reports. You must be observant and list all pertinent information needed to supply proper evidence in a

court of law, including (but not limited to) day and time of inspection and names of persons involved. If the inspection is going to warrant court action, take a few minutes after leaving

the premises to write a brief narrative of what occurred. This

will help refresh your memory later.

g. Answer Questions. Be perfectly willing to answer any questions

resulting from an inspection in a courteous manner.

h. Discussing Scheduling. Remember, an inspector does not normally discuss proposed or current scheduling with members of industry unless specified in departmental policy.

4. Inspections and Testing. The inspection and testing will usually be

made during routine inspections or investigations. Inspections will usually be

made without advance notice, unless specified otherwise in departmental

policy. The following is the testing procedures

a. Identification and Purpose. Identify yourself and state the

purpose of your visit to the individual in charge.

b. Assistance . If required, inform the person in charge of his responsibility to provide assistance and any special equipment.

c. Equipment. Set up test equipment.

d. Visual Examination. Make visual examinations.

e. Test. Conduct test in accordance with the appropriate

Examination Procedure Outline (EPO).

182
Education Committee

Review . At the conclusion of the test, review findings with the person in charge and explain fully your actions and the law upon

which they are based. At the concluson of the review, ensure

that the manager or other peson in authority signs your report.

183
Education Committee

APPENDIX B

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

FOR CERTIFICATION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS

I. Purpose

These procedures provide a mechanism by which the National

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) may certify the competence of weights and measures officials to inspect and test weighing and measuring devices and to verify the net contents of packaged goods in accordance with the uniform laws and regulations

adopted by the NCWM.

n. Goals

The goals of the program are twofold:

1. to encourage uniform enforcement of weights and measures laws

and regulations within the NCWM member jurisdictions, and

2. to provide national recognition of weights and measures officials who successfully complete training under the NCWM's National

Training Program, through issuance of an NCWM certificate and

awarding of Continuing Education Units (CEUs).

HI. Award of Certificate

A certificate will be awarded to each individual who: (1) successfully

completes a National Training Program module for which certification

is offered and (2) is recommended for certification by the State

certifying officer. Certificates will be awarded only to individuals in States having a current Letter of Agreement with the NCWM.

The certificate will be verified by the signatures of the State official responsible for weights and measures enforcement and the Chairman of the NCWM.

IV. Letter of Agreement

States wishing to participate in the NCWM certification program must

sign a "Letter of Agreement" (see Attachment 1) stating that they will train officials in accordance with and utilizing the NCWM's training

modules and adhere to the "Uniform Administrative Procedures For

Certification of Weights and Measures Officials." Signed Letters of Agreement should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the NCWM,

who will have the Conference Chairman countersign the agreement. A

copy will be returned to the designated State certifying officer.

184
Education Committee

V. Procedures

A. Responsibilities of the State certifying officer:

1. Provide training in accordance with the instructor's manual in each individual training module.

2. Submit information on all individuals successfully completing

NCWM training courses to the NCWM's National Training Program

Registry. Upon an individual weights and measures official's successful completion of a training module for which certification

is available, submit the name of the official and attest that the

official has completed the required training and is fully qualified to perform the procedures within the specific module.

3. Establish a training file on each participant to include:

a. schedule of training;

b. test scores;

c. evaluation of training;

d. letter to the NCWM Executive Secretary requesting

participant's certification;

e. copy of certificate issued by the NCWM; and

f. copy of the information sent to the National Training

Program Registry.

4. Make information in the training file available to representatives

of the NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs upon request. (To be referred back to the

Committee for consideration.)

5. By January 15 of each year, submit an annual report on the

jurisdiction's training activities during the previous calendar year

to the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs. The report shall include:

a. Attestation that all training records are current and in accordance with the "Uniform Administrative Procedures

for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials."

b. Attestation that training was provided in accordance with

the Instructor's manual for each module for which a

certificate was issued.

c. Names and titles of individuals performing training.

d. Attestation that individuals holding certification with

respect to an individual module have received information on any changes in the module in the previous calendar

year.

e. Number of individuals receiving training during the past

calendar year and number of individuals receiving

certificates during the past year.

185
Education Committee

B. Responsibilities of the Executive Secretary of the National Conference on Weights and Measures:

1. Issue an NCWM Certificate signed by the Conference Chairman

for each weights and measures official for whom he receives an

attestation of successful completion of a module from the

participating jurisdiction's certifying officer.

2. Maintain, in alphabetical order of participating jurisdictions, a

roster containing the name of the certifying officer for each

jurisdiction and the name of each official who has received

certification, identifying the modules for which certified.

3. Submit a report each year to the NCWM Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs at the interim

meeting, listing the participating jurisdictions, the certifying

officers, and the number of certificates issued in the previous

calendar year. C. Responsibilities of the NCWM Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs:

1. Review the annual reports of the certifying officers to assure compliance with these procedures.

2. Request Office of Weights and Measures staff and officers and

standing committee members of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures who are visiting participating jurisdictions to review files and procedures and to report any variances to the Committee. (To be referred back to the Committee for reconsideration.)

3. Instruct the Executive Secretary to remove a jurisdiction from

the active list of participating jurisdictions and withhold issuance

of all certificates whenever the Committee determines that the

jurisdiction fails to comply with the requirements of the

certification program.

4. Report annually to the NCWM on the status of the certification

program.

186
Education Committee

ATTACHMENT 1 SAMPLE LETTER OF AGREEMENT

The (Name of State) will participate with the National Conference on Weights and Measures in the training of weights and measures officials. The (Name of State) agrees to:

1. Train its officials in accordance with, and utilizing the training modules

published by, the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. Adhere to the procedures of the "Uniform Administrative Procedures

for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials."

3. Have the undersigned serve as a certifying officer in accordance with

the "Uniform Administrative Procedures for the Certification of Weights and Measures Officials."

Date

(Signed by individual responsible for weights and measures enforcement in the State).

Accepted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures:

Signature of Chairman Date

187
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

N. David Smith, Chairman

Director, Standards Division

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE KEY

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submitted its Report to the 70th Annual Meeting

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report

consisted of the Interim Report as offered in the Conference Announcement

and as amended by Addendum Sheets developed during the Annual Meeting.

After its component items were discussed and amended, the Report was adopted in its entirety by hand vote of the membership.

The Report contains the recommendations of the Committee formed on the

basis of written and oral comments received during the year. REFERENCE KEY ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT

The listing below of all of the items contained in the report is provided for

clarity. All of the items are informational and required no formal action of the membership.

501 Federal Agency Activities

501-1 Federal Grain Inspection Service

501-2 Net Weight

501-3 Aerosol Net Weight Labeling

501-4 Random Pack Quantity Statements to 0.001 lb 501-5 Federal Role in Net Wet Compliance

501-6 Credit Card Surcharge

502 Public Liaison

503 OIML Status Report

504 OWM Program

505 Railroad Freight Car Stenciled Tare Weights

506 Polyethylene Sheet Products

507 OWM, 150th Anniversary

508 Task Force on Motor Fuels

509 Task Force on Package Control

188
Liaison Committee

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS FOLLOW IN NUMERICAL ORDER

REFERENCE

KEY

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

501-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

Mr. Ben Banks, Industrial Specialist, reported that 1984 was a successful year for the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) railroad track scale

testing program. As reported to the 1984 NCWM, the FGIS implemented a new routing plan for the test cars, and this plan has proven to be more

efficient. The 1984 activities were as follows: Fourteen of the 15 master scales were tested. The Norfolk and Western Master Scale at Roanoke, Virginia, was taken out of

service for repairs.

Sixty scale tests were conducted on 40 railroad track scales used for official weighing of grain.

Sixteen railroad-owned scales and five other industry scales were tested. Five railroad-owned scale test cars were field calibrated and

two railroad scale test cars (long wheel base) were field calibrated for the Washington-Oregon Public Utilities Commission.

Four sets of LoDec wheel-load weighers were tested for the

City of New York on a cost reimbursement basis. Twenty-five railroad-owned scale test cars, representing eight

railroads, 20 10,000-pound test weights (Class "F" tolerance),

and 16 2,500-pound weights were calibrated at the FGIS Master

Scale Depot, Clearing, Illinois. The FGIS cooperated with the Office of Weights and Measures

by supplying historical data used by OWM in withdrawing

Report of Test No. 248. A revision of the FGIS scale regulations has been completed

and the appropriate sections of Handbook 44 have been

recommended for adoption by reference.

189
Liaison Committee

The Committee was reminded by Mr. Banks that FGIS is responsible for the

testing of railroad track scales used in the official weighing of grain. All other scale test requests are secondary and must be performed on a total cost recovery basis. The Committee was interested in how many testing

requests were received that FGIS could not honor. Mr. Banks indicated that next year's report will contain this information.

501-2 NET WEIGHT

On August 1, 1980, the Department of Agriculture (Food Safety and Quality

Service) and the Department of Health and Human Services (Food and Drug

Administration) published proposals to update their net weight labeling

regulations. A comment period for public comment was open from August

to November 6, 1980. The purpose of their proposals was to identify areas where agreement could

be reached by the groups that have an interest in improving net weight

regulations and to seek information in areas where such agreement was not reached. Additional information was sought in the area of the definition of a suitable tare — dry, wet, or drained weight, and in the area of moisture

allowance during the distribution process. Eighty-five comments were

received covering a number of areas and expressing differing views.

These comments were predominantly from industry and State and local governments. Almost all of the comments either disapproved of the

proposal or suggested major revisions. Many comments asserted that the proposed regulations were unnecessary because no chronic short weight

problem for food commodities has existed for more than a decade. Some of these comments added that, in the absence of such a problem, combined

with the lack of widespread consumer support for the proposed regulations, a change in the regulations is not needed.

At this time, neither Department has indicated a willingness to publish a

final regulation or to withdraw the outstanding proposal. However, both

Departments are represented on the NCWM Task Force on Commodity

Requirements, along with State weights and measures officials, industry

representatives, and a representative from the U.S. Office of Consumer

Affairs. This task force is charged with proposing a method of dealing with

the issue of moisture loss in meat, poultry, and flour. Representatives from

both Departments reported that the net weight proposals would not be acted

upon before the task force completed its work. The task force will issue a

status report to the Executive Committee.

190
Liaison Committee

501-3 AEROSOL NET WEIGHT LABELING

In May 1979, the National Conference on Weights and Measures petitioned

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require net weight labeling on

all aerosol containers. In June 1981, the FDA notified the Committee on

Liaison that its proposed action on the petition would be published in the

Federal Register. In 1983, the FDA repeated its intention to publish its proposed action in the Federal Register. In 1984, the Committee on Liaison was again advised that final action was still pending. At the 1985 Interim

Meeting, the Committee on Liaison was advised that no further effort was

being made to publish or act on the NCWM's petition on aerosol net weight

labeling.

Since the Conference still has an interest in having the proposal published,

the Committee initiated efforts to reactivate the Conference's petition to FDA to change its aerosol labeling regulations. Through correspondence to FDA from NCWM Chairman, Ezio Delfino, the Conference requested this action in April 1985. A reply in May 1985 from FDA's John M. Taylor,

Director, Office of Compliance, Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition, indicated that the files on this petition have been recalled and

updated and that the petition is now an active matter.

501-4 RANDOM PACK QUANTITY STATEMENTS TO 0.001 LB

In June 1983, the Committee on Laws and Regulations (L&R) notified the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug

Administration of its intention to amend Handbook 130, "Uniform Laws and

Regulations," Packaging and Labeling Regulation to allow weight declarations

to be carried out to three decimal places. The purpose of this notification was to stress the Conference's desire for regulatory uniformity in light of

the Federal agencies' requirement of two decimal places. Both agencies

responded to the effect that they have not received sufficient evidence of consumer benefit to warrant changing the regulations to allow three decimal

places.

In 1984, the Packaging and Labeling Regulation in Handbook 130 was amended to allow the prescribed units of random packages less than one pound to be carried out to three decimal places. In light of this amendment and the fact that Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and

Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices," permits

commercial weighing devices to indicate increments finer than 0.01 pound,

the NCWM Committee on Liaison has initiated action requesting both USDA

and FDA to officially recognize these developments and permit such labeling

under their regulations. Correspondence in July 1985 from NCWM

Chairman, Ezio Delfino, to John M. Taylor, FDA, and John McCutcheon,

USDA, explained these developments to the Federal agencies and urged them

to take action to permit random weight label declarations to three decimal

places.

191
Liaison Committee

501-5 FEDERAL ROLE IN NET WEIGHT COMPLIANCE

During the Interim Meeting, the Committee on Liaison heard a presentation

by USDA and FDA on their forms of inspection and the different types of compliance system used by these two Federal agencies. The differences are due to the types of product each agency inspects and to the different form

of the laws that each agency enforces. For example, the FDA inspection of food products is aimed at finding products that are not in compliance with

the Federal law that requires that food products be wholesome,

unadulterated, and not misbranded. The FDA system employs investigators to find and remove products that do not meet Federal standards. The Federal inspectors for USDA are required to assure the public that meat and poultry products are wholesome, unadulerated, and not misbranded.

To accomplish its mission, the USDA assigns food inspectors to all meat

and poultry processing plants on a full-time basis to ensure that products

meet the Federal standards. The difference between the two systems is further identified by the Federal seal on all meat and poultry products that

indicates that the product was inspected and passed by USDA.

These Federal systems, along with the concept of Federal preemption defined

through past legal cases, have a profound influence on the role of State and

local systems as they enforce their weights and measures laws. This concept

of Federal preemption and the idea of concurrent jurisdiction provide

opportunities for conflict and confusion if each enforcement agency does not understand the basis and needs for enforcement by the Federal system and

by the States and local agencies.

During the Interim Meeting, it seemed obvious to the Committee members

that better communication between the Federal regulators and the State and

local agencies could improve enforcement efforts by both systems.

Therefore, the Committee organized a program session with presentations by

USDA and FDA at the General Session of the 1985 Conference.

John M. Taylor, Director, Office of Compliance, Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition, FDA and John W. McCutcheon, Deputy Administrator,

Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA made presentations at the 1985

General Session, followed by a question and answer period. Copies of their presentations are included in Appendix F.

501-6 CREDIT CARD SURCHARGE

In 1983, the NCWM voted to support dropping the credit surcharge

prohibition when it expired. The Committee on Liaison had urged the Conference to adopt this position because of the effect of the credit

surcharge ban on the orderly dispensing of motor fuels at retail through

single-price computing pumps.

192
Liaison Committee

The ban on the credit card surcharge prohibition in the Cash Discount Act

expired on February 27, 1984. Since that time, the House and Senate have

been unable to agree on legislation to either extend the surcharge or sanction such surcharges.

Gerald Hurst, Consumer Affairs Office, Federal Reserve Board, advised the Committee that, because of this legislative impasse, there is no ban on

credit card surcharges at the present time. However, he cautions consumers, industry, and weights and measures officials that they should be aware that, when credit card surcharges are applied,certain disclosures to the public are required by the Truth in Lending Act. Thus, the type of

credit card presented at the time of motor fuel purchases may cause

disclosure problems for the credit card company. Under some conditions a

credit card surcharge must be disclosed on the monthly statement as a

finance charge. Under other conditions, the retail establishment is required

only to disclose the surcharge fee. Two bills introduced since January 1, 1985 will place a permanent ban on

credit card surcharges. The House bill, HR #24, was introduced by

Congressman Frank Anunzio (D-IL) and the Senate bill, S #212, was

introduced by Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY). Other bills are expected to be introduced that will require the credit card user to pay the cost of

credit. The Committee on Liaison and the Consumer Affairs Office of the Federal Reserve Board request that weights and measures officials advise them of

any State or local legislation on motor fuel price posting which would

impact the credit surcharge issue.

502 PUBLIC LIAISON

As an effort to improve awareness and understanding of weights and measures problems and issues, the Committee feels that relevant, concise

weights and measures information should periodically be directed to consumer leaders, trade associations, and other agencies. This information

will include weights and measures announcements and issues of concern to the general public or particular constituencies. A member of the Committee

and the Executive Secretary of the National Conference on Weights and Measures will select the information and contact the groups and publications

thought to be most appropriate for this purpose.

503 OIML STATUS REPORT (Joint session with the Executive

Committee

Mr. David Edgerly, manager of the NBS Standards Management Program in the Office of Product Standards Policy, reported on the quadrennial OIML

Conference held in October 1984, in Helsinki, Finland. Summaries were also

193
Liaison Committee

given of OIML standards committee developments and meetings, including

those involving NCWM participation held during late 1984 and also those

scheduled for 1985. Highlights of this report are as follows: U.S. participation in OIML remains active and strong. Many items might be

of interest, but attention will be focused on three areas that are of prime

importance.

First, OIML held its 7th International Conference in Helsinki, Finland, this past October, and a brief summary of that meeting is provided.

Secondly, a report describes our efforts to organize an international

intercomparison of load cell test rigs that should lead to a multilateral

agreement for mutual acceptance of pattern evaluation tests of load cells. This effort may have an effect upon the new National Type Evaluation

Program and will need the Conference's support in negotiating the

multilateral agreement.

Thirdly, after some five years of effort, work is being completed on two

OIML Recommendations dealing with electronic measuring instruments. The

results of this work will be summarized because the requirements and test methods that will be agreed to internationally can be very useful to the

Conference in its efforts to establish requirements and test methods for new

families of electronic devices.

7th OIML Conference

Unlike the National Conference on Weights and Measures, which meets

annually, the OIML Conference meets every four years. At these meetings,

technical requirements covering measuring instruments of all types are adopted; policy questions are addressed and resolved; and a quadrennial

budget for the Organization is worked out and adopted. The Conference

runs for one week much the same as the National Conference.

1. 7th International Conference held in Helsinki, Finland, October 1-5 was the 4th International Conference attended by the United States. o London 1972

o Paris 1976

o Washington 1980

o Helsinki 1984

2. Of the 49 current member nations of OIML, 39 sent delegations to the Conference.

Five Corresponding members and 11 International Organizations were

represented by observers. Peoples Republic of China sent a delegation to observe.

194
Liaison Committee

3. United States delegation included: o Stan Warshaw

o David Edgerly

o Ezio Delfino, Chairman-NCWM

o Al Tholen, Executive Secretary-NCWM

o Daryl Tonini

o Frank Lancetti

4. Government of Finland was official host. Meetings were conducted in Finlandia Hall. Conference Chairman was Dr. Kakkuri, Director,

Finland Technical Inspection Center (TTK). TTK is NBS equivalent in Finland and also responsible for legal metrology.

5. Work of the Conference: two Commissions were established to conduct the specialized work of the Conference: Technical

Commission whose job was to review the 20 draft International

Recommendations presented for adoption; and a Financial Commission,

whose job was to review the quadrennial budget up for adoption.

Commission meetings were held consecutively and the U.S. attended

both. Between meetings of the Commissions, there were plenary

sessions of the Conference.

6. Regarding Conference adoption of Recommendations of interest to the National Conference, nine of the 20 Recommendations presented for adoption dealt with devices that are familiar to our weights and measures community and are as follows: A. Grain Moisture Meters - Prepared by France. USA did not support because reference methods for determining

moisture content were not in accordance with official USDA Reference Methods.

B. Metrological Regulations for Load Cells - Prepared by

U.S. Recommendation establishes performance

requirements for pattern evaluation of load cells. It will serve as the base requirements for the international

intercomparison of load cell test rigs to be discussed

later. C. Automatic Gravimetric Filling Machines - Prepared by

the U.K. Establishes requirements and test methods for pattern evaluation of gravimetric filling machines.

D. Revision of IR3 Metrological Regulations for Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments - Prepared by FRG

and France. IR3 and IR28 are considered the OIML

Scale Code, so to speak. Revision of IR3 simplifies

presentation of requirements and includes supplemental

requirements for multi-range scales.

195
Liaison Committee

E. Revision of IR51 Checkweighing and Weight Grading

Machines-Prepared by the U.K. Revisions were purely

editorial and not worth mentioning.

F. Length Measuring Instruments - Prepared by France.

Includes pattern evaluation requirements for fabric, wire,

and cordage measuring devices. USA voted to accept the

draft. G. Tape Measures - Prepared by Belgium. Includes pattern

evaluation requirements for all types of rigid and flexible tape measures and rules. USA did not support. H. Checkweighers - Revision to existing IR, mostly editorial revisions.

I. Petroleum Tables - Prepared by the USA. Adoption of ISO standard 91/1 Volume correction tables of 15 °C/

60 °F.

7. Eleven other Recommendations (3 prepared by U.S.) were also adopted. They relate to devices that are not subject to weights and measures control in this country.

8. Outside the technical arena, the Conference took several policy

actions that may be of interest to NCWM.

A. Long-Term Planning - adopted the report of the

Committee and passed a resolution instructing the

Committee to implement its recommendations.

B. Certification system - Committee adopted rules for work

to continue on developing system in concert with U.S. views and Conference accepted report. C. 1985-88 Budget - adopted. About $500,000 per year. 2-3% real growth plus inflation of 8.5% indexed to actual rates. U.S. annual contribution will be $35,000 to $40,000 over period.

9. Summary

7th Conference was successful. Good participation and

discussions, generally free of politics.

Most U.S. delegation objectives were met. We did not support 3 proposed IRs for technical reasons: Sound Level

Meters; Grain Moisture Meters; Tape Measures.

196
Liaison Committee

o Most significant aspects of the Conference: — 20 Draft IRs adopted (number steadily increasing) — Action on planning — General awareness that test methods are now

extremely important

o Appreciate NCWM's support and participation o Next Conference will be October 1988 in Sydney,

Australia

Load Cell Intercomparison

Over the past year and a half, the United States has worked with officials from Australia, the Netherlands, West Germany, and the United Kingdom in devising an international intercomparison of load cell test rigs. o The program will is to compare the results of pattern

evaluation tests on load cells following the 01 ML load cell Recommendation just adopted at the 7th International

Conference. Following the successful completion of the

intercomparison, a multilateral test agreement will be

negotiated among the five nations. In signing the protocol,

each nation will agree to accept each other's test results without discrimination. o As the program is now envisioned, NBS will be the pivot

laboratory in scheduling and conducting the intercomparison and

in analyzing and publishing the test results. The tests will be

carried out on several cells of 25 metric ton capacity,

representing two designs and two manufacturers.

In preparing to participate in the intercomparison and to act as pivot lab, NBS has equipped its 112,000-lb test machine with an

environmental chamber capable of operating within the -10 °C

to +40 °C OIML temperature range. NBS has also acquired a barometric pressure chamber and are considering adding a

humidity test chamber. Tests of load cells to OIML specs have

been carried out at NBS and its Force and Mass Group is satisfied with the results. All things being equal, a successful intercomparison and

resultant test protocol will benefit manufacturers wishing to get

cells approved in the countries mentioned, be a step down the

road to mutual acceptance of pattern approvals of entire scale systems by OIML member nations, and, of particular interest to

this group, equip NBS to assist NTEP in handling approvals of large-capacity scales.

197
Liaison Committee

At a planned meeting in April in the Netherlands, experts from

the five national labs were scheduled to approve the procedures

to be used in the intercomparison. If everything goes well, the

intercomparison will begin in July or August and should be

completed within a year. The multilateral agreement is to be

signed in 1986, pending successful completion of the

intercomparison.

The new Scales Code will go into effect in January 1986 and

includes, among other things, temperature and other

environmental requirements that new scales will have to meet

as of the effective date of the code. It is generally recognized

that scales up to about 2,000-lb capacity will be tested as a

unit within NTEP. That is, one of the approved NTEP labs

will place the entire scale system into an environmental

chamber to run the 50 °C temperature range test. However,

for large-capacity scales (i.e., vehicle, axle load, livestock, and

railway track) such is not the case. An NTEP test would

involve a two-step process: first, approval of load cells and

indicator under specified environmental conditions, followed by a

test of the entire system in situ before issuance of the NTEP

certificate. NBS is the only lab outside of industry that is equipped to run such tests. Further, it is not likely that the

States will make the necessary capital expenditures of about

$500,000 to purchase such test equipment. Accordingly, the

existing NBS competence to test large capacity load cells will be useful in NTEP.

Support from the NCWM will be necessary for this whole effort

to be successful. It is, of course, obvious that any agreement

with other nations regarding the mutual acceptance of pattern

evaluation tests must first receive the support of the NCWM

and NTEP in order for it to have any weight in the United

States. Thus, NCWM support will be necessary in order for the

United States to be able to negotiate the proposed multilateral

agreement with Germany, Australia, The Netherlands and Great

Britain. The experts meeting held in April 1985 in the Netherlands resulted in a

decision to expand the intercomparison to include load cells below the 25 metric ton capacity. Accordingly, the program will also entail tests of cells at the 500 kg and 18 kg capacity. The decision to expand the range of load

cell capacities was driven on one hand by industry, and on the other by the other participating nations, who consider it important to intercompare

pattern evaluation test capabilities over the broad range of load cell capacities now in use. The intercomparison is still scheduled to begin in September 1985, and is expected to take about 18 months to complete.

198
Liaison Committee

Electronic Measuring Instruments

Over the past several years two concurrent OIML committees have worked

very closely on requirements for electronic measuring instruments. One

committee, chaired by the Netherlands, has responsibility for drafting

requirements and pattern evaluation test procedures considered applicable to

all types of electronic instruments. Such requirements and tests, when finally

approved, will serve as the basis for other OIML committees writing

Recommendations on specific types of measuring instruments, e.g., scales,

meters, medical instruments. In fact, the U.S. chairs a committee on

electronic scales and has worked closely with our Dutch colleagues in drafting their general requirements. It is hoped that these two committees

will finish their work this June(1985) during a joint meeting of the

committees in Denmark. Approximately 25 nations actively participate in these meetings.

Conceptually, the requirements are quite simple. The basic requirement is that an electronic measuring instrument (e.g., scale, gas pump, medical

device) must be designed such that it will not exceed maximum permissible

errors under normal conditions of use, as determined by pattern evaluation

testing. Further, conditions that tend to impair instrument performance are

identified and classified into two categories: influence factors and

disturbances. Influence factors are quantities that are not the subject of measurement,

but that affect the value of the measure and/or the indication of the

instrument (e.g., temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, power voltage

variations). Disturbances are quantities generally outside of normal operating

conditions (e.g., electrical spikes, electromagnetic interference, static discharge) that also affect the indication of the instrument.

Under the requirements, a manufacturer must be able to demonstrate under

pattern evaluation that his instrument will stay within the maximum

permissible error under normal operating conditions and that, when subjected

to disturbances beyond normal operating conditions, the instrument will either continue to function properly or, through means of self-checking

circuitry, detect a change of data of a specified magnitude and react through audio or visual means. Thus the manufacturer can either so design

and shield his equipment that it will not be significantly affected by

disturbances or he can include checking circuitry that will detect and react

to a significant change of data flowing through the instrument. In the case

of electronic scales, a change of data equal to or greater than 1 scale

division constitutes a significant fault.

If checking circuitry is included in the instrument there are requirements as

to when checks must occur in the instrument and whether such checks are automatic or call for operator intervention.

199
Liaison Committee

An included series of pattern evaluation tests cover a wide range of influence factors and disturbances. In each test, severity limits of test conditions are indicated, as well as permissible errors. The working groups

are still divided with respect to durability testing, where we run into

semantic difficulties. Many of our European colleagues want to include tests that speak to the quality of electronic components over time. They term

these durability tests, whereas we consider them reliability tests of electronic components. Our position is that reliability testing of electronic

components is the concern of the manufacturer not the weights and measures official. In our opinion, durability testing of a scale, for example, means testing it under simulated conditions of use for a given period of time, say 100,000 applications of a weight representing some period of use. We hope to resolve this issue at the June meeting.

In summary, the work of these committees represents an enormous amount

of manhours and technical experience that has paid off in the form of the

two draft OIML Electronics Recommendations that will be completed this June. Their adoption at the Committee level will begin the long process of

final adoption by the Organization, during which time they will be

scrutinized by the 49 nations of OIML. However, as they currently stand,

they offer a comprehensive set of requirements and test methods that the

National Conference should begin to look at and consider for inclusion in Handbook 44 and NTEP.

In June 1985, delegations from 16 nations and 5 international organizations

participated in OIML meetings dealing with requirements and tests for electronic weighing and measuring instruments. The meetings were hosted

by the United States and the Netherlands, and resulted in the completion of work on an OIML International Document covering general requirements for electronic measuring instruments and on an OIML International

Recommendation covering requirements specific to electronic weighing

instruments. Both drafts will now be submitted to the International

Committee of Legal Metrology for formal adoption. Of particular

importance are the recommended performance and durability tests. For the

most part, these tests are taken from existing test methods within the

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

Pilot Secretariat 20 (SP20) Prepackaged Articles

Meetings of Pilot Secretariat 20 (SP20) on Prepackaged Articles were held in Locarno, Switzerland, on June 4-7. The objectives of the meetings were to:

1) address package label requirements, and 2) develop the main principles of the compliance testing program used to verify package net contents. The

meetings were attended by 16 people from the following countries:

Canada Spain

Denmark Sweden

France Switzerland (Chairman SR 2) Great Britain United States (SR 1) The Netherlands West Germany

200
Liaison Committee

The meeting of SR 1, chaired by Eric Vadelund, National Bureau of Standards, addressed three specific topics. These included:

1) completion of the draft on "Information on Package Labels";

2) the need for OIML to be involved in ingredient labeling; and

3) development of a document on methods of sale and tests for

difficult products such as aerosols, paints, and ice cream. The draft on "Information on Package Labels", which includes the identity of the commodity, name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or

distributor, and the net quantity of contents, was completed. A working

copy is attached. Copies will be circulated for approval by the OIML

Director in September 1985. Concerning ingredient labeling, the subcommittee felt that the issue deals more with product quality than

metrology, is covered by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (a United

Nations Organization), and lies outside the scope of OIML. However, the

question of ingredient label statement formats may be addressed by this or another subcommittee at a later date. The development and circulation of a

draft international document on the method of sale and tests for difficult products was scheduled for February 1986. The meeting of SR 2, chaired by Pierre Koch of the Federal Office of Metrology, Switzerland, addressed the important characteristics of official sampling methods used to verify net quantity declarations of prepackaged

products. The key items follow. Point of Inspection and Compliance

Goods should be sampled at the points of production or of import, but in some cases they may be taken from transport, storage, or points of sale. Compliance requirements hold for goods with negligible time-dependent

quantity variations (e.g., no moisture loss) and must be fulfilled at the point

of production or at the point of import. Lot Definition

Inspection lots are defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) vocabulary 3534. Without specific reference to the ISO definition, it is believed that a lot is defined similarly to the U.S.

definition, which includes all packages of the same product and label from

the same packer entering commerce or offered for sale at one point in time. It is assumed that all packages bearing the same code are homogeneous. However, single shipments containing different date codes

may be considered a single inspection lot. Large lots of the same code will be subdivided into separate inspection lots of 4000 units.

201
Liaison Committee

Tolerable Negative Errors These are similar to our Maximum Allowable Variations (MAV) for individual packages and are identical to the European Economic Community (EEC)

allowances. Unfortunately, these allowances are generally less than the

MAV's in Handbook 133, particularly within the range of 10.5 oz (300 g) to

9 lb (4000 g). Although this may be of concern, it is partially alleviated by

the compliance requirements.

TOLERABLE NEGATIVE ERRCRS

Label Quantity (Q^) Percent

In Grams or Milliliters of g or ni

5 to less than 50 996 50 to less than 100 4.5

100 to less than 200 4.5%

200 to less than 300 9.0

300 to less than 500 396 500 to less than 1 000 15.0

1 000 to less than 10 000 1.5%

Sample Size

It was the intention of Chairman Pierre Koch to use one sampling plan and

sample size for all lot sizes. However, the committee persuaded him to consider a separate plan for small lots with less than 150 individual units. The proposed plans include: Lot Size Sample Size Less than 150 Not Yet specified

150 - 4,000 32 Over 4,000 See Note

Note: Divide large lots into sublots of 4 000 (or less if necessary) and use a sample size of 32 on each sublot. The sample size of 32 is almost identical to the sample size used in H-133

Category A plan of 30 for lot sizes ranging from 31 to 800 and the

Category B plan for lot sizes in excess of 250 units. Compliance Requirements

OIML, like the European nations and the U.S., intends to base compliance

requirements on the average concept. As with HB-133 Category A plans, a number of inspection sample units may fall below the tolerable negative

error limits and the sample average may be slightly below the declared net contents and still be acceptable.

202
Liaison Committee

Specifically, OIML is considering a plan that will allow as many as 2 containers in a sample of 32 to be below the tolerable negative error. Also,

the inspection sample average can be 2.45 standard deviations of the mean

(oC = 0.1) below the label declaration. Under H-133 Category A plans, one

unit out of 30 may be below the MAV and the sample average cannot be

lower than the label declaration by an amount greater than 2.0 standard

deviations of the the mean (<* = .025) adjusted for small lots. In essence, the proposed OIML sampling plan and compliance requirements

are similar to the H-133 Category A criteria. Although the OIML tolerable negative errors are smaller than the MAV's, twice as many are allowed. Under OIML, the producer's risk (£) is smaller. The next meeting of SR 2 is planned in September 1986 in either St. Gallen, Switzerland, or Boras, Sweden.

504 OWM PROGRAM (Joint session with the Executive Committee)

Update of NBS Program

Al Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, and Executive Secretary,

National Conference on Weights and Measures, reported on the recent accomplishments of the Office of Weights and Measures and described the

future program of the Office for the period 1985 through 1989 emphasizing

tasks, trends, and new activities. Mr. Tholen described four major activities, established three years ago, to:

1. expand support to the National Conference on Weights and

Measures;

2c assist the 50 State measurement laboratories to upgrade and

expand their technical services to local governments and

industry;

3. fund, through a grant to the National Conference on Weights

and Measures, the start of a national training program; and

4. develop a national, uniform, voluntary prototype evaluation

program for commercial measuring and weighing devices.

The National Bureau of Standards supported these activities and has achieved

impressive success in attaining related objectives. Development of two new

programs has progressed on schedule with results that will benefit the State and industry interests (see Reference Key 304-1 for the current status of

the National Type Approval Program, and the Report of the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for the status of the National Training Program).

203
Liaison Committee

The following major tasks have been completed recently:

1. development and publication of NBS Special Publication 686, "State Weights and Measures Laboratories, Program Description

and Directory," which describes the objectives of the NBS State Laboratory Program and describes the services provided by the

State laboratories for support of their own regulatory activities as well as for other State and industry needs;

2. development and publication of NBS Special Handbook 143, "State Weights and Measures Laboratories, Program Handbook,"

which prescribes performance standards and procedures for:

a. certification of the capability of State laboratories to produce reliable metrological measurements (principally in mass, volume, and length), and

b. authorization of State laboratories to conduct tests of commercial devices under the National Type Evaluation

Program;

3. development and publication of NBS Special Publication 691,

"Index of the Reports of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures, 1905 through 1985," which updates a previous

index last updated in 1971;

4. updating and publication as the second edition of NBS Handbook

133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods"; and

5. establishment of a newsletter, "W&M Today."

Correspondence with NBS Director

Chairman Delfino wrote a letter to the NBS Director in support of the NBS

program. Dr. Ambler's response was optimistic in terms of the current funding for the weights and measures program.

505 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED TARE WEIGHTS

Mr. John J. Robinson, Assistant Vice-President and Secretary of the

Association of American Railroads (AAR), provided the Committee with a

status report on freight car tare weights. Mr. Robinson's report was

supplemented by a January 8, 1985 letter to Mr. A. D. Tholen, reprinted in part as follows: "As you know, certain car types (i.e., equipped box cars, refrigerator

cars, covered hopper and tank cars, etc.) are "exempt" from the

60-month periodical reweighing provisions of the railroads' Interchange

Rules. In addition, as set forth in Paragraph 3.4.5 of Section 3.4., RAILROAD CAR TARE WEIGHTS, of the Model State Regulation For

204
Liaison Committee

The Method Of Sale Of Commodities, such cars must be reweighed

only when they bear no lightweight stencilling or when

repairs/alterations result in a change of weight in excess of the

permissible lightweight tolerance. It is not known how many of these

cars have not been weighed within 60 months or which, if any cars, do not meet the permissible tolerances. However, 82,495 or 10% of these exempt cars were reweighed during 1984, an increase of 23,600

cars over the number weighed during 1983. This included 30,176

covered hoppers, or 12,008 more than the prior year.

In addition, 137,620 or 18.7% of the "non-exempt" general service

fleet cars were reweighed during 1984, an increase of 30,797 cars over the number weighed during 1983. As of January 1, 1985, 29% of the serviceable "non-exempt" freight car fleet tare weights or some 217,950 cars have not been reweighed

within the past 60 months. The potential for possible inaccurate tare weights increases with the length of time between re weighing, and we

have again urged the rail carriers to increase their activity in this area. While we have not conducted a specific study, it is my impression

that stenciled tare weights are actually being used by only a very

small percentage of rail shippers due to the large number of carload

rates, contracts, and weight agreements. In those instances where a

shipper believes the stenciled tare weight to be erroneous, reweighing

of the car may be requested under the weighing and reweighing tariff of the serving railroad. Such weighing services are normally provided

without charge if the applicable tolerance between actual and

stenciled tare weights is exceeded.

With the increased automation of accounting procedures, more and more rail carriers are relying on the tare weights of freight cars as

reflected in the AAR's computerized equipment register, UMLER. We

have an active on-going program by our field force to make random

checks of stenciled tare weights that, in turn, are compared with the

UMLER data base. When discrepancies are noted, corrective action is taken to insure that the tare weights agree.

I expect that the trend will continue toward the use of computerized

data bases by both shippers and railroads in the next several years.

It may be practical in the not-too-distant future to completely

eliminate the stenciled tare weight from the side of freight cars. Tare weights would be updated automatically in the UMLER file when

cars are reweighed. Arrangements could be made for those few

shippers who continue to require such information to obtain it as needed from their serving railroad."

205
Liaison Committee

The UMLER (Universal Machine Language Equipment Register) file is a computerized register of the national rail car fleet that includes the car

tare weight and the date the tare weight was last updated for all freight

cars. While the UMLER file is not complete at this time, the railroad industry is rapidly moving to complete the file and extend this computerized

data base to both shippers and railroads. Mr. Robinson is suggesting that this trend may eventually eliminate the need for stenciled weights.

The Committee urges weights and measures officials to consider the

ramifications if stenciled rail car tare weights are eliminated. To stimulate

discussion, these points are offered: Who will have access to the UMLER file and how is the file accessed?

What safeguards will exist to prevent unauthorized and

fraudulent entries?

Who will monitor the accuracy of listings?

How will a noncomputerized shipper and/or railroad have access

to the file? What charges will be assessed for obtaining tare weights from

the file? What limitations exist or will be placed on shippers or other

nonrailroad users accessing the file? How will discrepancies in the file's tare weight data be

resolved?

These points, and others, need discussion so that the railroad industry can

address the concerns, if any, of weights and measures officials before

implementing a totally computerized system.

506 POLYETHYLENE SHEET PRODUCTS

The Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) has embarked on a program

intended to provide protection to consumers and fair competition among

manufacturers of polyethylene sheet products. They feel that the industry

should accept the financial responsibility of testing by an independent

laboratory to verify that their products meet the requirements of ASTM

Standard D-4397 (formerly NBS Voluntary Product Standard 17-69) and the National Conference on Weights and Measures Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulations. The industry should and will be held responsible by

State and local weights and measures inspectors if there are flagrant

violations of these requirements.

206
Liaison Committee

Labeling of polyethylene film products should be completely representative

of the product that is marketed and all aspects of the product description should be the criteria used by the independent lab to determine compliance

. . . not just, for example, the weight per roll. Upon compliance with the stated requirements, the independent testing laboratory will issue a Notice

of Product Certification. The independent testing laboratory is the sole judge of product conformance to the FPA's product certification program.

When certified by the FPA's contracting laboratory, a manufacturer may

purchase and affix labels (bearing the testing laboratory logo and identity)

stating that the product meets requirements.

The Committee met with Sharon Durand of the National Certified Testing

Laboratories which will perform FPA's certification testing to discuss the program and to verify that they are familiar with the NCWM Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation as well as the package testing procedures

for polyethylene sheet products provided in NBS Handbook 133, "Checking

the Net Contents of Packaged Goods."

507 OWM, 150th ANNIVERSARY

Congress, in a joint resolution of June 14, 1836, gave its formal approval to weights and measures standards, established by Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler,

and directed the Treasury to fabricate weights and measures standards for the customhouses and the States. By reason of the joint resolution of 1836. the Office of Weights and Measures is considered formally established as or that date in the Coast Survey of the Treasury Department.

NBS/OWM is planning a series of events to recognize the 150th Anniversary

of the Office of Weights and Measures. Through these events NCWM and

OWM hope to:increase the visibility for the recognition of weights and measures officials at the State and local level. This will help

to show industry and the consuming public the role these

officials play in maintaining, through regulation and

enforcement, equity in the marketplace;

assist industry and the public to understand the nonregulatory

role of the Federal OWM and its relationship through NCWM to State and local jurisdictions which are responsible for weights

and measures enforcement;

promote uniformity in weights and measures laws and

regulations, and methods of inspection among the State and

local jurisdictions;

207
Liaison Committee

improve industry awareness of NCWM's new national type

evaluation program, which provides manufacturers of weighing

and measuring devices with a centralized, uniform certification program of new devices that is accepted by all of the States,

thereby reducing manufacturers' costs by eliminating duplicate

device evaluations by several jurisdictions;

promote acceptance of new standards for the labeling of

alcohol fuel blends at the pump, and documentation of motor

fuels through the distribution chain; and

develop a better understanding by industry and consumers of the

factors that affect the weight of certain packaged items,

particularly food products that become lighter in weight because

of loss of moisture.

Schedule of Events The major meetings of industry and trade association groups provide a number of opportunities to publicize the work and accomplishemnts of the

weights and measures community. The following is a partial list of these events for 1986: Date Events January Interim Committee Meetings of NCWM

April Scale Manufacturers Association Annual Meeting

Meeting of Industry Committee on Packaging and

Labeling

Northwestern Regional Weights and Measures

Association Meeting

May Northeast Regional Weights and

Association Meeting

Measures

National Scalemen's Association Annual Technical

Conference

June Association of Food and Drug Officials Annual

Meeting

July

September

Annual NCWM Meeting

Western Regional Weights and Measures Association

Meeting

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Annual Meeting

208
Liaison Committee

October Southern Regional Weights and Measures Association

Milk Industry Foundation - Ice Cream Manufacturers

Association Joint Annual Meeting

Planned Activities

1. Obtain a U.S. Postal Service commemorative stamp for National

Weights and Measures. Written requests have been sent by Ernest Ambler, Director, National Bureau of Standards and Albert Tholen,

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures to Paul N. Carlin, Postmaster

General and the Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee. If a commemorative stamp is obtained, a reception or other type of event

will be held to publicize the issuance of the stamp.

2. "National Weights and Measures Week," traditionally celebrated during

the first seven days in March each year, will incorporate the

anniversary theme.

3. Obtain a "Presidential Proclamation" for the 150th Anniversary of the Office of Weights and Measures. The proclamation is to be issued in conjunction with a National weights and Measures Week resolution.

4. Produce Weights and Measures Week Guide, 1986. This is a media

guide prepared each year by OWM as an NCWM publication and

distributed to conference members for their use in coordinating local media events.

5. Create a 150th Anniversary Year Logo that will be used on only

NCWM publications and letterheads. It cannot be used by OWM

unless special DoC permission is granted.

6. Obtain a commemorative medal for the 150th Anniversary

celebration.

7. Develop a "150th Anniversary Certificate" to be given to NCWM

members in July 1986.

8. Develop promotional items for the "National Weights and Measures

150th Anniversary Year." They could include ties, pins, calendars,

paper weights, and other items that will be sold.

9. NCWM will hold a banquet at the July 1986 annual meeting of the onference, to be held in Albuquerque, N.M., to honor the 150th

nniversary of the Office of Weights and Measures. (Note: the Conference usually does not have an annual banquet as a part of the

annual meeting. NCWM will invite appropriate speakers for the

special anniversary year event.)

209
Liaison Committee

10. Develop and enlist business and consumer awareness for the 150th

Anniversary celebration. Trade and industry associations will be

requested to assist in promoting public awareness of the 150th

Anniversary Year.

11. Produce and distribute to NCWM members a facsimile document of the congressional resolution of 1836 that created the Office of Weights and Measures.

12. Produce a souvenir brochure, which will include a description of major

events, an outline of the history of the Office of Weights and

Measures, and a facsimile document of the congressional resolution.

13. Prepare an article on the 150th anniversary of OWM featuring the

latest scientific technology used in weighing and measuring devices for publication in NBS Research Reports.

14. Arrange for feature stories in major publications about the history of weights and measures activities and the 150th Anniversary Year in order to give the program of OWM/NCWM better visibility. 15. Prepare and plan public information activities, which will feature radio

and television interviews, press releases, and press kits on select

activities. DoC will send the programs to 500 radio stations.

16. Promote the film, "The Market Place," by making it available to trade, industry associations, and consumer groups. The film will be

featured in the lobby of the NBS Administration Building. The film is available from OWM by request.

508 TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

During the 68th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures in 1983, the delegates to the Conference voted to establish guidelines requiring that motor fuels containing alcohol be labeled to disclose

to the retail purchaser that the fuel contains alcohol. The delegates deemed

this action necessary since motor vehicle manufacturers were qualifying their warranties with respect to some gasoline-alcohol blends, motor fuel users were complaining to weights and measures officials about fuel quality and

vehicle performance, and ASTM seemed so hopelessly deadlocked regarding

quality standards for oxygenated fuels that quality specifications could

possibly be years in development. While many argued that weights and measures officials should not cross the line from quantity assurance programs to programs regulating quality, the delegates were persuaded that the issue needed immediate attention. For some time, several State administrators of motor fuel testing programs

have recognized the need for a uniform approach to fuel inspection and

regulation. With the introduction of gasoline-alcohol blends and the rush to

210
Liaison Committee

promulgate requirements affecting them, the need for a coordinated and

uniform approach to motor fuel regulation became even more apparent.

Also, many States without an inspection program were being urged by

citizens to do something about what was perceived to be poor fuel quality.

In an attempt to fill a regulatory and information void, Mr. Sam Hindsman,

Director of the Arkansas Bureau of Standards and Chairman for the 69th

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

appointed a Motor Fuels Task Force in January 1984. Mr. Hindsman gave

the Task Force the mission of identifying information and resources that are

available from standards development organizations, professional

organizations, private companies, and trade associations for use in developing

uniformity in the regulation of motor fuels. The members of the Task

Force were:

N. David Smith (North Carolina), Chairman

Sydney Andrews (Florida)

Barbara Bloch (California)

David Karlish (Arkansas)

George Mattimoe (Hawaii)

Frank Nagele (Michigan)

Curtis Williams (Georgia)

Carroll Brickenkamp (NBS), Staff Assistant

In a letter dated April 13, 1984, Mr. Hindsman wrote the Nation's governors

to inform them that the National Conference on Weights and Measures is vitally interested in motor fuel quality and that a task force had been

appointed to seek uniformity in the evaluation and testing of motor fuels. Of the 52 letters mailed, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 48

responses were received identifying a contact person for the Task Force. The

enthusiastic responses to Mr. Hindsman's letter are an indication that motor

fuel quality is an item of concern with State governments.

Since the Task Force was unsure of how many States have testing programs, how comprehensive the programs are, or how the nontesting States deal with

fuel complaints, the Task Force decided to develop a detailed questionnaire

to answer these questions. The questionnaire, which was mailed to each

State in July 1984, was designed to provide information that would be

helpful in developing a "uniform" testing program. A brief outline follows:

I. Survey of Laws, Regulations, and Administration

A. Are motor fuels tested in your State?

B. If not, are you planning such a program?

C. Number of personnel associated with testing program.

D. Provide Task Force with copy of law and regulations.

E. Is ASTM D-439 adopted and are modifications allowed?

F. How is the program funded?

II. Field Operations and Enforcement

A. How are petroleum products supplied to your State

(pipeline, barge, rail, truck)?

B. Number of jobbers or wholesalers and retail outlets.

211
Liaison Committee

C. Frequency of inspection. D. Gallons of products sold annually.

E. How are fuel samples taken and transported?

F. Are mobile laboratories used in your program?

G. What steps are taken to identify and remove substandard

products from sale? H. Number of fuel samples taken annually.

HI. Technological Capabilities A. Size of testing laboratory.

B. Organization of laboratory.

C. Types of tests performed and test method.

D. Number of tests performed annually for each type of

test. E. Types and brands of equipment used.

F. Planned equipment purchases.

Gasoline-Alcohol Blends A. Are gasoline-alcohol blends sold in your State?

B. Are such blends required to comply with the same quality

standards as conventional gasoline?

C. Do you have a pump labeling requirement?

D. Are shipping papers required to disclose the presence of alcohol?

IV.

Questionnaires were mailed to all States and to Puerto Rico. Forty-three

completed the questionnaires or responded by letter. Mr. David Karlish

(Arkansas) compiled the responses in a format that can be printed for

distribution to interested parties; this information is available on request to the Office of Weights and Measures. The Task Force (except for George Mattimoe) met in Atlanta, Georgia on September 20-21, 1984. During the two-day meeting, it reviewed responses to

the questionnaire and drafted a uniform motor vehicle fuel inspection law

and regulations. The Task Force also heard a presentation by Mr. Harry

Weaver, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, concerning his association's position on alcohol labeling. Prior to the Atlanta meeting, the Task Force

learned that Mr. Harwood Owings, Supervisor of the Maryland Motor Fuel

Testing Lab, planned to organize a meeting during the North American

Gasoline Tax Conference for the purpose of developing a model motor fuel inspection law.

The Task Force felt that two groups should not be working on the same

problem. Due to Mr. Owings1 considerable contributions and expertise, he was invited to become a member of the Task Force. The Task Force met at the close of the Interim Meeting (February 1 and 2) to finalize the uniform law. It proposed a Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection

Law and Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel (see appendices D and E) for review and discussion at the Annual Meeting. The Task Force will submit the

final draft to the Committee on Laws and Regulations for consideration at the January 1986 NCWM Interim Committee meeting.

212
Liaison Committee

As evidenced by the debates before the past two Conferences and the many

hours of research and study by members of ASTM, it is extremely difficult to develop regulatory policy or guidelines regarding motor fuels, especially

gasoline-alcohol blends, that serve the needs of fuel consumers and vehicle

manufacturers while being fair to the developers of new fuels. After all, regulatory officials should not restrict the development of new fuels, but

motor fuel users have a right to expect that the fuels they use will perform

satisfactorily and not harm their equipment. The issues of fuel suitability,

quality specifications, and appropriate testing methods have been thoroughly

discussed by the Task Force. However, until ASTM develops and incorporates

specifications for gasoline-oxygenate blends in the Annual Book of ASTM

standards, it will be very difficult to achieve uniformity in the evaluation

and testing of such blends. The Task Force understands that ASTM plans to publish gasoline-oxygenate standards. It will be wise for all those concerned

with motor fuel quality to work at getting the Proposed Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuels adopted as "the" standard.

The following items are appendices to this report: A. Mr. Hindsman's letter to the governors;

B. the questionnaire; C. States responding to the questionnaire; D. proposed Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law; and

E. proposed Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel.

509 TASK FORCE ON PACKAGE CONTROL

At the close of the 69th Annual Meeting of the NCWM in Boston in July

1984, activities of this Task Force were reassigned by the incoming

Conference chairman. Package control issues are now being addressed by

the Conference through the activities of the NCWM Task Force on Commodity Requirements and its associated Subcommittee on Commodity

Standards. Inasmuch as no additional written comments were received on

either the draft 'T'-Mark Program concept or other aspects of the Task

Force on Package Controls 1983-84 work agenda subsequent to the 69th Annual Meeting, no further report will be issued. Work of the Task Force

on Package Control has been documented in both the 68th NCWM

Proceedings (1983) as voting item 505, and in the 69th NCWM Proceedings

(1984) as voting item 508. The latter report of activities was supplemented,

in Appendix C of the 69th NCWM Proceedings, by the 23-page preliminary

draft 'T'-Mark Program Description.

N. D. Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

P. H. Adams, Bucks County, PA

C. R. Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.

J. W. McCutcheon, USDA

K. J. Simila, Oregon

S. Hasko, NBS, Technical Advisor

213
APPENDIX A

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

CHAIRMAN ARKANSAS BUREAU OF STANDARDS

4608 WEST 61 ST STREET

LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72209 PHONE: 501-371-1759

SAM F. HINOSMAN ALBERT 0. THOLEN

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS

PO. BOX 3137 GAITHERSBURG. MARYLANO 20878 PHONE: 301-921-2401

April 13, 1984

Honorable George C. Wallace

Governor of Alabama

Executive Department

State Capitol

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Governor Wallace:

As Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM),

I am writing to seek your State's assistance on a matter of tremendous

importance to the producers, retailers, and consumers of motor fuels.

Because of recent complaints regarding the quality of certain motor

fuels in several states, the NCWM has authorized the establishment of a task force whose mission will b'e to identify information and resources

that are available and which will aid in the uniform evaluation and

testing of motor fuels.

While the term "motor fuels" seems all inclusive, the main thrust of

the task force is gasolines and gasoline- alcohol blends. The enclosed

news release provides additional information on the National Conference

on Weights and Measures, why the task force was formed, the

organizations the task force will be contacting, and the identity of

the task force members.

To expedite the work of the task force, please let me know who the

person is most directly involved in administering Alabama's motor fuels

inspection program. If Alabama does not have an active inspection

program, we need to know the identity of the person who can answer

questions regarding what motor fuels quality- laws and regulations, if any, exist in Alabama. The assistance of your. office in -providing the. appropriate name and address will be appreciated.

Sam F. Hindsman, Chairman

National Conference on Weights and Measures

(Same letter sent to 50 States Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands)

Enclosure 214
APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF LAWS, REGULATIONS , AM) ADMINISTRATION

Part 1

1. Is spark ignition motor fuel (gasoline and gasoline - alcohol blends)

tested in your* state by a state or other regulatory agency?

YES NO

1 a. Is your* state or regulatory agency in the planning stages of testing

motor fuel (law passed or in the process of being passed)? _ YES (Complete the questionaire with your first year plans)

NO (If "no", to questions 1 and la, please turn to Part 4,

Gasoline-Alcohol Blerx^s.)

2. Is your motor fuel testing program part of a division or section which

has additional responsibilities?

YES (If "yes" # please list those additional responsibilities.)

NO

3. Please provide us with an organizational chart.

4. What is your* annual budget?

$ (If your budget is for programs in addition

to fuel testing, please provide only the amount related to operating your motor

fuel testing program. Estimate if necessary.)

3. Number of personnel associated with your* motor fuels testing program.

6. Please provide us with a copy of your* motor fuels inspection law and

regulations.

§ 'Does the law specify "fuel requirements or dees the law permit

.implementation of specifications by "promulgation of regulations?

# Who adopts your* rules (agency head, board, commission)?

• "You" and "your" means the responding agency.

215
k APPENDIX B (Continued)

# Are public hearings required before adoption of rules?

# After adoption, are your* regulations subject to review by another

agency (Legislative review, Attorney General, other)?

Please explain.

7. What are your* requirements on fuel advertising (price, self-service,

grade, alcohol blends, etc.)?

8. Does your* law require product registration and, if so, at what level(s)

(manufacturers, wholesalers, jobbers, retail operations) must the product

be registered?

9. Who reviews or approves product registration? (hearing board, state chemist, etc.)?

10. What professional societies (ASTM, NCWM, SAE, etc.) do you* actively

participate in?

11. Does your" law or regulations allow for modifications or exceptions to ASTM D-439? If "yes", do you have exceptions and, if so, please list

them

.

12. How is your* inspection program funded (general fund tax, motor fuel tax, user fee, etc. )?

13. Are retail outlets required to be licensed or registered?

YES NO

14. If "yes" to number 13, can the license or registration be suspended or revoked

for not meeting minimum requirements?

YES NO

216
APPENDIX C

STATES RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE

1. ALABAMA 23. MISSISSIPPI

2. ALASKA 24. MISSOURI

3. ARIZONA 25. MONTANA

4. ARKANSAS 26. NEBRASKA

5. CALIFORNIA 27. NEVADA

6. COLORADO 28. NEW JERSEY

7. CONNECTICUT 29. NEW MEXICO

8. DELAWARE 30. NORTH CAROLINA

9

.

FLORIDA 31. NORTH DAKOTA

10. GEORGIA 32. OHIO

11. HAWAII 33. OKLAHOMA

12. IDAHO 34. OREGON

13. ILLINOIS 35. SOUTH DAKOTA

14. INDIANA 36. TENNESSEE

15. IOWA 37. TEXAS

16. KANSAS 38. UTAH

17. LOUISIANA 39. VERMONT

18. MAINE 40. WASHINGTON

19. MARYLAND 41. WEST VIRGINIA

20. MASSACHUSETTS 42. WISCONSIN

21. MICHIGAN 43. WYOMING

22. MINNESOTA

217
Liaison Committee

APPENDIX D

PROPOSED

UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL INSPECTION LAW

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

It is desired that there should be uniformity among the requirements of the

several States. This Act provides for the establishment of quality

specifications for all liquid motor fuels, except aviation fuel and liquefied

petroleum gases. SECTION 2. SCOPE

The Act establishes a sampling, testing, and enforcement program, provides

authority for fee collection, requires registration of motor fuels, and

empowers the State to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the

provisions of the Act. It also provides for penalties.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS

As used in this Act:

3.1. MOTOR FUEL. — The term "motor fuel" means any liquid product

used for the generation of power in an internal combustion

engine.

3.2. DIRECTOR. — The term "Director" means the of the

Department of . 3.3. PERSON. — The term "person" means both plural and singular, as the case demands and includes individuals, partnerships, corporations,

companies, societies, and associations.

SECTION 4. ADMINISTRATION, ADOPTION OF STANDARDS, AND RULES

The provisions of the Act shall be administered by the Director or his authorized agent. For the purpose of administering and giving effect to the

provisions of this Act, the standards set forth in the Annual Book of ASTM

Standards and supplements thereto, and revisions thereof, are adopted except

as amended or modified by the Director. The Director is empowered to write rules and regulations on the advertising, posting of prices, labeling,

standards for, and identity of motor fuels and is authorized to establish a

testing laboratory.

218
Committee on Liaison

SECTION 5. GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS

The Director shall have the authority to:

5.1. Enforce and administer all the provisions of this Act by inspections,

analyses, and other appropriate actions.

5.2. Have access during normal business hours to all places where motor

fuels are marketed for the purpose of examination, inspection,

taking of samples, and investigation. If such access shall be

refused by the owner or agent or other persons leasing the same,

the Director or his agent may obtain an administrative search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.

5.3. Collect or cause to be collected, samples of motor fuels marketed in this State, and cause such samples to be tested or analyzed for compliance with the provisions of this Act.

5.4. Issue a stop-sale order for any motor fuel found not to be in compliance and remand said stop-sale order if the motor fuel is brought into full compliance with this Act.

5.5. Refuse, revoke, or suspend the registration of a motor fuel.

5.6. Delegate to authorized agents any of the responsibilities for the proper administration of this Act.

SECTION 6. REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION OF MOTOR FUELS

All motor fuel must be registered by the name, brand, or trademark under

which it will be sold. Such registration shall include:

(1) Name and address of person registering the motor fuel.

(2) Antiknock index or Cetane number, as appropriate, at which the motor fuel is to be marketed.

(3) Certification, declaration, or affidavit that each individual grade

or type of motor fuel shall conform to the provisions of

this Act. SECTION 7. INSPECTION FEE

There shall be paid a fee of $ per gallon on all motor fuels marketed within this State for the purposes of administering and effectively

enforcing the provisions of this Act.

219
Liaison Committee

SECTION 8. UNLAWFUL ACTS

It shall be unlawful to:

(1) Market motor fuels in any manner that may deceive or tend to deceive the purchaser as to the nature, price, quantity

and/or quality of a motor fuel.

(2) Fail to register a motor fuel.

(3) Submit incorrect, misleading or false information regarding the

registration of a motor fuel.

(4) Hinder or obstruct the Director, or his authorized agent, in the performance of his duties.

(5) Market a motor fuel that is contrary to the provisions of this Act. SECTION 9. PENALTIES

Any person who violates any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated

pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ L or imprisonment for not more than years, or both. SECTION 10. INJUNCTION

The Director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction

for a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from

violating any provision of this Act.

SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY PROVISION

If any word, phrase, provision, or portion of this Act shall be held in a

court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, the

unconstitutionality or invalidity shall apply only to such word, phrase,

provision, or portion, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable. SECTION 12. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING LAWS

All laws and parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of

this Act are repealed except as to offense committed, liabilities incurred,

and claims made thereunder prior to the effective date of this Act.

SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act shall become effective on .

220
Committee on Liaison

APPENDIX E

PROPOSED

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR MOTOR FUEL

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

1.1. "SPARK-IGNITION MOTOR FUEL" — "Spark-ignition motor fuel" means gasoline and its blends with oxygenates such as alcohols and

ethers.

1.2. "GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLEND" — For labeling purposes,

"gasoline-alcohol blend" means any spark-ignition motor fuel containing one percent by volume or more, of ethanol, methanol,

or any combination of ethanol and/or methanol.

SECTION 2. FUEL SPECIFICATIONS

2.1. Spark-ignition motor fuel shall meet ASTM "Proposed Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel." In addition, the maximum

oxygen content permitted is 3.7 percent by weight.

2.2. Diesel fuel must meet current ASTM D975, "Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils."

2.3. Kerosene must meet current ASTM D3699, "Standard Specification for Kerosene". SECTION 3. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDS

3.1. METHOD OF RETAIL SALE - All motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed

for sale, or sold, at retail containing at least one percent by

volume of ethanol, methanol, or a combination shall be identified as "with," "containing," (or similar wording) "ethanol," "methanol,"

or "ethanol/m ethanol" on the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type

one-half the size of the product identity but in no case less than one half inch in height, 1/16 inch stroke (width of type).

3.2. DOCUMENTATION FOR PUMP LABELING PURPOSES. — The retailer must be provided at the time of delivery of the fuel on an

invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, the presence and maximum amount of ethanol, methanol, or any

combination of ethanol/methanol (in terms of percent by volume)

contained in the fuel. This documentation is only for pump

labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of any potential blender

to determine the total oxygen content of the motor fuel before

blending.

221
Liaison Committee

APPENDIX F

PRESENTATIONS ON FEDERAL ROLE IN NET WEIGHT COMPLIANCE

70th National Conference on Weights and Measures

Presented by

John W. McCutcheon

Deputy Administrator

Meat and Poultry Inspection Technical Service

Food Safety Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC

and

John M. Taylor

Director

Office of Compliance

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Food and Drug Administration

Washington, DC

BY MR. McCUTCHEON:

Good morning. I am very pleased to participate in this year's National

Conference on Weights and Measures . . . and to have this opportunity to discuss net weight compliance from our perspective in the Food Safety and

Inspection Service, which is responsible for meat and poultry inspection in this country.

Although USDA's Meat and Poultry Inspection program is nearly 80 years

old, we are still evaluating it to see where improvements can be made. We

have a long-range strategy based on four basic principles. One principle

shows our commitment to protecting the public, and the other three point up

our encouragement of industry and government productivity. I should add

that protecting the public throughout the food chain is the primary objective of meat and poultry inspection; this objective certainly includes administering

fair and enforceable net weight regulations for meat and poultry products.

Before we get into the net weight issue, it might be useful, for those of you who may not be familiar with USDA's Food Safety & Inspection Service, to provide a brief explanation of the Agency's meat and poultry inspection

program. It derives its authority from the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957, as amended by the

1967 Wholesome Meat Act and the 1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act.

222
Committee on Liaison

The 1906 Meat Inspection Act, along with the 1906 Food and Drugs Act, were the first efforts of Congress to protect American consumers

legislatively.

The Federal meat and poultry inspection program is founded on the principle that the health and welfare of consumers should be protected by assuring

that meat and poultry food products are wholesome, not adulterated, and

properly marked, labeled and packaged. From its beginnings early in this century, the program has developed into a comprehensive system for inspecting all meat and poultry products shipped in interstate and foreign commerce. The Agency tests meat and poultry products for the presence of

violative drug and chemical residues and other adulterants. In addition, food

distribution channels are monitored to prevent violations of law. Industries

allied to the production of meat and poultry products, such as shippers,

warehousers, wholesale distributors, and retailers are subject to intermittent,

unannounced reviews. All vehicles used to transport meat and poultry

products are subject to examination by our inspectors.

In carrying out its programs, FSIS works with other Federal agencies, such

as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency,

and with State and local agencies. The 1967 and 1968 Acts ushered in the

era of Federal/State cooperative inspection programs, authorizing the

Federal Government to help States in developing and maintaining inspection

programs that are "at least equal to" the Federal program. Federal aid has

included advisory assistance by our Federal/State relations staff in planning

and developing State programs, technical and laboratory support and training,

and up to fifty percent of the cost of cooperative programs. The meat and poultry inspection program has changed over the years in response to new knowledge and changing demands. Like the industry we

regulate, we in the inspection service have had to adjust to a growing consumer population and improved technology and marketing practices.

Today, USDA's food inspection force is by far the largest health inspection

force in the Federal government, both in absolute numbers and in the ratio of inspectors to regulated facilities. We have 7,500 inspectors in the field overseeing the operation of some 7,200 meat and poultry slaughter and

processing plants. In addition, States with their own inspection programs

have 2,152 inspectors overseeing the intrastate operations of 5,768 plants.

Figures include official, custom, and exempt plants.

The Meat and Poultry Inspection laws are very specific in contrast to those

administered by FDA, which has a somewhat different regulatory role. Our

inspection laws carry several mandates . . . every carcass is subject to inspection at slaughter ... all slaughter and processing operations must be

carried out under sanitary conditions . . . products must be properly labeled

. . . product wholesomeness and identification must be maintained throughout

the processing and distribution chain . . . meat and poultry imports are

subject to reinspection on a statistical random sampling basis at ports of

entry. As part of its responsibility, FSIS conducts a prior approval program

for labels to be used on federally inspected meat and poultry products to assure that they are truthful and that the products contain appropriate

ingredients.

223
Liaison Committee

The most significant difference between USDA and FDA is that USDA must

conduct daily continuous inspection. USDA has authority to slow or halt production, retain product in the plant, and withdraw a Federal inspection

grant. FDA . . . again, because of its different regulatory role . . . does

not have such authority, nor does it have pre market approval authority for

labels. Our responsibility for net weight inspection was extended and reinforced by

the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act

of 1968. The Congressional intent was to protect the public from, among

other things, improperly labeled and packaged meat and poultry. Regulations

allowed for reasonable variations from the labeled net weight that are due

to . . . (1) moisture loss or gain occuring despite good distribution practices

. . . and (2) unavoidable deviations occuring despite good manufacturing

practices. USDA is committed to uniform procedures for net weight at the

Federal, State and local levels. I should point out that States may not impose any marking or labeling requirements on federally inspected product

in addition to or different from those made under the Federal Meat and

Poultry Inspection Acts. With respect to State-inspected product, the States must impose inspection requirements that are at least equal to Federal

requirements; however, they may also impose additional requirements.

As many of you know, the net weight labeling issue has had a stormy

history. In the course of developing weights and measures regulations over

the years, some State and local governments did not provide for any

reasonable variation in net weight caused by moisture loss or gain during

good distribution practices. California was one of these states, and in 1972 a local official ordered bacon made by the Rath Packing Company, a

federally inspected plant, removed from stores for shortweighting. Rath

successfully challenged California's action in Federal District Court in 1973. However, in addition to ruling that California's standards were excessive, the

district court held that USDA's regulation was so vague as to be void.

In response to the district court ruling, USDA developed a proposal in December 1973 to change the net weight regulations. The proposal defined

the weight variations that would be allowed at the plant and at the time of

retail sale. Free liquid in containers remained part of the net weight. The

proposal provided for a mandatory, rather than voluntary quality control

program to be operated by the producing plant. Five public hearings were

held around the country in 1974 to explain the proposal. Over 1,600

comments were received from consumers, State weights and measures

officials, and industry. No group expressed unqualified support for the

proposal.

California appealed the district court decision to a circuit court of appeals

and then to the Supreme Court. Both courts upheld the decision that Federal law preempted State law, but they reversed the lower court's ruling that the "reasonable variations" part of the regulation was void for vagueness. Following the Supreme Court decision, the States petitioned

USDA, FDA and the FTC for new net weight labeling requirements. The

224
Committee on Liaison

petition stated that the Federal standard allowing "reasonable" but undefined

shortages in weight for moisture loss is not enforceable by either Federal or State officials because it is vague, and that existing regulations were unfair

to consumers who do not receive full measure as represented on the package.

In response, USDA published a new proposal intended to provide information on the usable weight of the meat and poultry contents in the package at the

time of purchase. Among the changes proposed were the adoption of weight

definitions, a new definition of reasonable variation, a mandatory net weight

quality control program, and a tightened inspection sampling procedure. The

proposal drew more than 3,000 comments, many questioning the need for such changes and contending they would raise prices. More than two thirds of the respondents opposed the proposal.

USDA then sought additional data on which to reconsider its proposal from

such sources as the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the Consumer

Federation of America, and the General Accounting Office. In xA.ugust 1980, a new proposal was published that would not only ensure accurate

information about the contents of containers, but also provide specific net weight standards that State and local authorities could enforce at the retail

level. The proposal would also establish uniformity with FDA's net weight

labeling regulations for food products other than meat and poultry.

The proposal would replace reasonable variations due to loss or gain of moisture in the course of good distribution practices, or by unavoidable

deviations in good manufacturing practices, with maximum allowable

variations which appear to be reasonable when determined by specific

procedures. The maximum allowable variations were based on recognized,

unavoidable deviations which occur during the manufacturing process. Allowance for moisture loss during distribution was not made in development

of these variations. Proposed allowed variations were determined after extensive consultation with the National Bureau of Standards. These

variations would be used and enforced at the time of production, during

distribution, and at retail sale by Federal, State and local regulatory

officials within their respective regulatory authorities. Manufacturers who

had data to support moisture loss allowances during distribution were

encouraged to submit these data for our consideration.

The proposal also provided options for a definition of tare, which is one of the most difficult issues to resolve. With regard to liquids absorbed by the packaging materials, we made alternative proposals on whether to include

such liquids in the tare. The proposal would, in most cases, include them in the labeled net weight. However, for those few products that are packed in substances that are normally discarded, such as water, brine, curing solution and vinegar, a drained weight standard would apply. For those products the

free liquids would be included in the tare weight and not in the labeled net

weight.

225
Liaison Committee

And the proposal also provided sampling procedures for enforcement purposes which reflect consultation with the National Bureau of Standards on

appropriate, statistically sound sampling theory. A production lot would

comply with the regulations if the total weight of a specified number of samples taken from that lot at least equalled the total of their labeled weights. For packages bearing a pre-printed tare weight statement, if the

average weight of sample packaging materials and containers is equal to or

less than the printed tare weight statement, the lot passes. If the average

weight of the sample packaging materials and containers is greater than the printed tare weight, the lot fails. Approximately 550 comments were received on the proposal from industry

members, trade associations, State and local government officials, and

individual consumers. Analysis of the comments showed significant

opposition to the proposal on the grounds that the changes could have

adverse economic impacts on industry that outweigh the potential benefits to the public. No further action has been taken on the proposal.

HOW NET WEIGHT IS NOW REGULATED

So much for the review of our policy efforts to devise a workable solution

to the issues raised by the court cases. It might be useful, at this point, to discuss how we regulate net weight issues now . . . and what we see as the

State's current role. Part of the Agency's responsibility is to assure the accurate labeling . . . including net weight statements ... of products when they leave federally

inspected facilities. As I have said, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and

the Poultry Products Inspection Act specifically provide for "reasonable

variations" in net weight declarations. The Acts further stipulate that

variations from the stated quantity of contents shall not be "unreasonably

large." Efforts to accurately portray net weight contents in many meat and

poultry products are complicated because of the naturally high level of moisture in such products, and by the further addition of moisture incidental to processing operations. Consequently, it is frequently difficult to ascertain

how much * subsequent weight variation because of moisture loss is "unreasonably large." We are, however, able to establish some working

criteria—particularly with respect to those products that are imperviously

packaged at official establishments. These criteria are made possible by

in-plant net weight controls, coupled with processing controls, to assure that prescribed moisture limits are not exceeded. Such limits relate to permitted

moisture absorption in the chilling of poultry carcasses, for example.

In traditional processing plants, the inspector uses lot inspection procedures

to check on net weights. On the average, the inspector checks ten production lots a week. The number will vary according to the plant's

history of compliance and other factors that come to the attention of the

inspector, and he can increase or decrease the number of checks he makes.

226
Committee on Liaison

The inspector follows procedures for net weight checks that appear in the

Meat and Poultry Inspection Manual. The basic procedure is to check ten containers per lot. The inspector knows that not every one-pound package

will weigh 16 ounces. He looks for the average, the high-low range, and the lower limit for individual containers. If the two lowest weights fail the

lower limit for individual containers published in the Manual, or the sample

average fails the lower limit for averages, the product is retained to be

reworked or relabeled. However, if only one of the lowest weights fails the lower limit for individual containers, and/or the sample average falls between the lower limit and upper limit for 10-sample averages, the

inspector will select and weigh an additional 30 containers before a decision can be made on the sample lot. The lot would be acceptable if, from the sample of 40 containers, no more than one container weight is below the

lower limit for individual containers and the sample average is equal to or greater than the declared weight.

When a plant has an approved quality control system, either total quality control or partial quality control, the procedure, of course, is different. Perhaps a brief explanation of quality control systems in federally inspected

meat and poultry plants is in order. Many plants have developed quality control systems to ensure consistency and wholesomeness in their products,

as well as to control costs. The plants must then submit their quality control plan to the Agency for approval, so that we are satisfied the system

will produce products that meet our regulatory requirements. Our inspectors

monitor the plants for compliance with the plan, and this monitoring

becomes, in effect, our means of inspecting them for compliance with the meat and poultry inspection regulations. Under a total quality control system, plants collect data during all stages of production on such variables as plant sanitation, the condition of ingredients, cooking times and

temperatures, and finished product content and net weight. Critical control

points along the production line are identified in the plan, and monitoring

tests are specified at each point to check for problems. Our inspectors

evaluate the company records of the tests on a regular basis at each

critical control point, and also validate the records by conducting a number

of their own checks. Further checks are made through the periodic sampling

of final products. Under the partial quality control approach, a plan is developed for the preparation for individual products or processes, or for part of an operation designed to meet a particular requirement, such as the

determination of net weight.

When a plant has a quality control system for checking net weights, it determines the frequency of net weight checks in its plant, subject, of

course, to our approval. Frequency would depend on the type of operation.

The higher the volume of production, the greater the frequency. For

example, in plants producing canned hams, net weight checks at hourly

frequencies may be appropriate; but in plants producing frozen dinners or frozen pizza, which are higher volume operations, net weight checks may be

set at 15-minute intervals. Although approved quality control plans will vary from plant to plant, they

contain some basic components--U) target values which establish the lower

limit for individual weights, for subgroup averages of 10 weights, and for subgroup averages of 5 weights. Also, the limit for the ranges of subgroups

227
Liaison Committee

of 10 weights ... (2) the subgroup size for a particular plan must be

clearly indicated ... (3) the frequency of weight checks for a particular

plan must be indicated ... (4) the name of the plant employee responsible

for the quality control plan must also be indicated.

Our responsibility, then, is to see that the quality control plan submitted and

approved by us is carried out. The inspector monitors the net weight

checks, and the monitoring can range from checking any number of subgroups to a total lot check. In one plant the inspector might watch the

plant's quality line to recheck the weights of those packages. In another

plant, the inspector may weigh the packages before the plant does, and then

recheck the weights recorded by the plant employee. Here again, the extent and nature of monitoring depends on the plant's history of compliance, other factors that come to the attention of the inspector, and

our monitoring indicators. We now have over 450 plants on our total quality control program, and

approximately 3,200 partial quality control programs operating in over 1,800

plants. Approximately 350 of the partial quality control programs in operation are net weight programs. That means that 800 plants . . . about one out of nine federally inspected plants . . . have quality control for net weight.

USDA's responsibility for net weight does not end at the plant. It extends

as far as a USDA-inspected product travels in the commercial distribution chain. In fact, it extends all the way to the final user of the product.

When violations come to the attention of our compliance officers in the

field, appropriate action is taken. And because State and local officials have concurrent jurisdiction with USDA over federally inspected product

after it leaves a federally inspected plant, they have the authority to determine and enforce net weight compliance in locations such as warehouses and retail establishments in their jurisdiction. State and local enforcement officers could retain product for violations such as adulteration,

misbranding, or gross mishandling. An example of the latter would be

weight loss due to thawing of frozen product. And when a State does take

action against a company for these kinds of violations, the action has the

full support of the USDA.

CONCLUSION

I believe you will all agree that USDA, and all other participants in this conference, share a common purpose . . . and that is ... to protect the consumer in the marketplace. In this context, the net weight inspection

system in the United States . . . including Federal, State, and local

jurisdictions . . . can be viewed as a public means of accomplishing in an

efficient and effective way what is impractical for consumers to accomplish

individually.

BY MR. TAYLOR;

I am very happy to be with you today. I guess the title of my brief remarks could be titled "Quality Control Practices of the Manufacturer."

228
Committee on Liaison

FDA has the responsibility of enforcing the FD&C Act which requires

(Sec. 403 (e)(2)) the label of a food in package form to bear an accurate statement of the quantity of contents. The regulation (|l01.105 (Q)) states that reasonable variations in good manufacturing practice (GMP) will be

recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall not be

unreasonably large.

There are no FDA established guidelines concerning what are unavoidable

deviations in GMP's for filling and weighing foods. It is the packer's

responsibility to label the food with an accurate statement of the quantity

of contents. FDA does not recommend or prefer particular practices or equipment. A weighing and filling practice that is not otherwise

objectionable will be considered "current GMP" and FDA will not take

exception to such practice if it packages food with accurate quantity of contents declarations.

In view of the fact that individual weighings by a manufacturer on a balance

or scale would be just as acceptable to FDA as the fastest most automatic

weighing system then it should be apparent that answers to questions about

what are appropriate quality control practices must necessarily be based on

a complete analysis of a particular set of circumstances. Otherwise, the answer to questions concerning how often?, what kind?, how much?, must be

answered in generalities such as often as necessary to . . ., adequate to . . ., as much as is required to . . . A manufacturer seeking advice from FDA about filling and weighing

equipment and control procedures would be advised that it is his responsibility to assure accurate quantity of contents statements on labels and that FDA will evaluate procedures and will ordinarily not object to methods (no matter how primitive) that result in accurate statements. The

manufacturer may be advised to consult filling and weighing equipment

manufacturers or persons who have knowledge and experience about current manufacturing practices for this purpose.

DEFINITION OF LOT

For purposes of net quantity of contents determinations a lot will not

necessarily be that which has been designated as a lot by the packer. It may be any identifiable sub-group or combination of groups (codes, etc.) that

will serve to comprise a lot for purposes of quantity of contents regulatory

actions. FEDERAL (FDA) ADOPTION OF NCWM PRACTICES

Although it may be desirable, it is not necessary for FDA to agree with and

adopt the conference's recommendations on all issues, especially practices

such as described in Handbook 133. FDA rarely disagrees in principle with

the NCWM. However, it may be appropriate for us to deviate from its recommendation when we factor in the practicalities of available resources, agency priorities, etc.

229
Liaison Committee

FDA ENFORCEMENT CRITERIA

FDA enforcement criteria and practices for net weight are intended to be

reasonable. The one percent short weight criterion is designed to allow the

agency to effect regulatory action with assurance that its inspectional and

analytical techniques and a charge that a product is short weight will withstand any challenge from the packer and the courts. In addition, we

believe that our practice of not initiating regulatory action unless there is a

one percent deviation from the labeled quantity is justified in the light of the resources required to effect regulatory action. It should be noted that the one percent is not a "tolerance" (some NCWM members shudder at the

word).

OTHER POINTS

o FDA is not primarily or even secondarily a weights and measures

organization. Net weight is a minor part of our enforcement

activities. o FDA does not have power to order products off-sale. o Weighing at packing site will be used to determine compliance and

must be followed up by an official interstate sample. The interstate

sample may be obtained at the packing site if the product has already

been shipped in interstate commerce.

o FDA will rarely weigh at retail sites.

230
Nomination Committee

REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Sam F. Hindsman, Chairman

Director, Arkansas Bureau of Standards

REFERENCE KEY

800

The Nominating Committee met during the interim meetings at Gaithersburg

in January and selected the listed persons to be nominated for officers of

the Conference. In the selection of nominees from the active membership,

consideration was given to professional experience, qualification of individuals, attendance, Conference participation, regional representation, and other

factors considered to be important.

Each of the persons named has been contacted and has agreed to serve if elected. CHAIRMAN-ELECT:

VICE-CHAIRMEN:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

(3-year terms)

TREASURER:

CHAPLAIN:

Respectfully submitted:

Frank Nagele, Michigan

Charles Carroll, Massachusettes

O. Ray Elliott, Oklahoma

Edward Skluzacek, Minnesota

Charles Tandy, Jr., Alaska

James Lyles, Virginia

Joseph Swanson, Alaska

Charles Gardner, Jr*, Suffolk County, NY

Francis W. Daniels, Wayne

County, IN

Sam F. Hindsman, Arkansas, Chairman

Sydney D. Andrews, Florida

Edward C. Heffron, Michigan

Charles H. Greene, New Mexico

James F. Lyles, Virginia

Kendrick J. Simila, Oregon

Richard L. Thompson, Maryland

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

(On motion of the Committee Chairman the report of the Nominating

Committee, voting key item 800, was adopted in its entirety by the Conference.)

231
Resolutions Committee

REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

Charles Tandy Jr., Chief

Weights and Measures

State of Alaska

REFERENCE KEY

700

The Resolutions Committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to those who

contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for, the conduct

of, and the success of this 70th Annual Meeting. Special votes of thanks

go:

(1) to Virginia Knauer, Special Adviser to the President for Consumer Affairs and Director of the United States Office

of Consumer Affairs, for her interesting address describing some of the consumer problems at the national level and

her encouragement to reach more consumers with the

weights and measures message;

(2) to Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of the National Bureau of Standards, for his comprehensive review of NCWM

accomplishments and his thought-provoking challenge to "grass roots" weights and measures officials to apply in their everyday activities what has already been

accomplished by the NCWM;

(3) to officers and appointed officials of the National Confer- ence on Weights and Measures for their assistance and

service toward progress on national issues;

(4) to committee members for their efforts throughout the

past year preparing and presenting their reports; to the

sub-committees and task forces for their discerning and

appropriate recommendations;

(5) to governing officials of State and local jurisdictions for

their advice, interest, and support in weights and measures

administration in the United States;

(6) to representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conference work;

to the Associate Membership organization for its hosting

functions;

232
Resolutions Committee

(7) to the staff of the J. W. Marriott Hotel for their assis- tance and courtesies, which contributed to the enjoyment

and comfort of the delegates in their fine facilities;

(8) to the National Bureau of Standards and the Office of Weights and Measures for their outstanding assistance in planning and conducting the work and program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures; and

(9) to the Office of Weights and Measures staff: Ann Heffernan

Karen Barkley

Terry Grimes

Dawn Hoffman

Carol McKenzie

for expert and hospitable operation of the administrative

operations of the Meeting.

C. Tandy, Jr., Alaska, Chairman

S. Abercrombie, Georgia

W. Eldridge, Mississippi D. Lynch, Kansas City, KS

E. Maxwell, District of Columbia

C. Pittman, Tennessee

F. Thomas, Pennsylvania

R. Smith, Technical Advisor, NBS

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

(On motion of the Committee Chairman the report of the Resolutions

Committee, Reference Key Item 700, was adopted in its entirety by the

Conference.)

233
Auditing Committee

REPORT OF THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

Robert G. Williams, Assistant Director

Division of Marketing

Department of Agriculture

Nashville, Tennessee REFERENCE KEY

900

The Auditing Committee met on Tuesday afternoon, July 16, for the purpose

of reviewing the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer, Charles A. Gardner, Jr. The Committee finds these records to be in accordance with

Conference procedure and correct.

R. Williams, Tennessee, Chairman

F. Clem, City of Columbus, OH

E. Romano, Glenn County, CA

R. Smith, NBS, Technical Advisor

AUDITING COMMITTEE

(On motion of Mr. Williams, the report of the Auditing Committee, Refer- ence Key Item 900, was adopted by the Conference.)

234
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE TREASURER

Charles A. Gardner, Assistant Director

Weights and Measures Suffolk County Consumer Affairs, New York

REFERENCE KEY

1000 INTRODUCTION

It is my pleasure to report to you on the financial status of the Conference

Treasury as follows:

CASH ON HAND - JUNE 30, 1984 $ 48,815.09

RECEIPTS Account No. 1.1 Registration $16,550.00

» " 1 .2 Membership 51,590.00

" " 1 .3 Publications 235.00

" "1.4 Interest 2,720.71

" " 1 .5 Novelties 280.00

" " 1 .9 Miscellaneous - 0

- TOTAL RECEIPTS $ 71 ,375.71

TOTAL CASH BALANCE AND RECEIPTS $120,190.80

DISBURSEMENTS

Account No. 2.0 Annual Meeting

3.0 Interim Meeting

5.0 Special Programs

6.0 Chairman's Expenses

7.0 Membership

8.0 Printing & Publications

9.0 Administration

1 1 .0 Novelties

$12,314.59

22,458.99

,372.65

,015.07

,216.68

,702.18

5,073.25

1 ,518.25

2165

7

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $ 81 ,671 .66 Cash on Hand - June 30, 1985

Super N.O.W. Account - European American Bank

Hauppauge , New York

Checking Account - Union Trust Co. Gaithersburg , Maryland

TOTAL ASSESTS

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND ASSETS

$ 38,204.90

31 4.24

$ 38,519.14

$120,190.80

235
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

GRANT ACCOUNT

CASH ON HAND - June 30, 1984

RECEIPTS

Grant Payments Interest TOTAL RECEIPTS

TOTAL CASH BALANCE AND RECEIPTS

$ 84,051 .92

$134,249.20

6,652.66

$ 140,901 .86 $224,953.78

DISBURSEMENTS

Contractors $155,436.65

Equipment 5,481.50

Supplies & Miscellaneous 2,905.86

Return of Excess Funds 58,31 1 .83 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $222,135.84

Cash Balance - June 30, 1985

Super N.O.W. Account - European American Bank

Hauppauge, New York $ 2,817.94

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND CASH BALANCE $ 224,953.78

(Signed) Charles A. Gardner, Treasurer

(On motion of Mr. Gardner, the report of the Conference Treasurer, Reference

Key Item 1000, was adopted by the Conference.)

236
APPOINTMENTS BY CHAIRMAN

Chairman George Mattimoe announced the following appointments

reappointments at the General Session on Thursday, July 18, 1985: STANDING COMMITTEES

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee

Tom Scott, State of North Carolina

Laws and Regulations

Sidney Colbrook, State of Illinois Liaison Committee

James Akey, State of Kansas

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

David Watson, City of Fort Worth, TX

OTHER APPOINTMENTS

Parliamentarian - Kendrick J. Simila, State of Oregon

Assistant Treasurer - Fred Thomas, State of Pennsylvania

Sergeants-at-Arms - Lyman Holloway, State of Idaho

Norman Ross, State of Nebraska

Representatives to OIML

U. S. Advisory Committee: George Mattimoe, Hawaii

PS 20: Richard Thompson, Maryland

Associate Membership Committee

Harvey Lodge, Dunbar, Chairman

Walter Kupper, Mettler, Vice Chairman

Kenneth Appell, Colgate-Palmolive, Treasurer Richard Davis, James River, Member

Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Foods, Member

Anthony Ladd, A.J. Ladd Weighing & Packaging Systems

Andrew Moore, Grocery Manufacturers of America

Robert Nelson, General Mills Raymond Wells, Sensitive Measurements Inc. Art Kroll, Gilbarco, Inc. Auditing Committee

Robert Williams, State of Tennessee, Chairman

John Berquist, City of Minneapolis

Edward Romano, Glenn County, CA

237
Budget Review Committee

George Mattimoe, State of Hawaii

Richard Davis, James River

Paul Engler, County of Los Angeles, CA

Thomas Kelly, State of New Jersey

Credentials Committee

Arthur Hershbein, Dade County, FL, Chairman

Eugene Keeley, State of Delaware

Gilbert Allen, City of Spokane, WA

Resolutions Committee

Charles Tandy, Jr., State of Alaska, Chairman

Charles Carroll, State of Massachusetts

William Eldridge, State of Mississippi

Donald Lynch, State of Kansas George MacDonald, State of Minnesota

Earl Maxwell, District of Columbia

Fred Thomas, State of Pennsylvania

TASK FORCES AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Task Force on Commodity Requirements

The members of this task force remain unchanged.

Technical Committee on Commodity Standards

This commitee was formerly named "Subcommittee on Commodity Standards". Its members remain the same.

Task Force on Information Systems

Kendrick Simila, State of Oregon, Chairman

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation

Weighing Industry Sector Joe Giannina, Corpus Christi Public Elevator

Task Force on Motor Fuels No changes were made in the membership of this Task Force.

Legislative Liaison Committee

This committee is newly formed and will report to the Liaison Committee.

Its members are: Don Stagg, State of Alabama,l Chairman

Darrell Guensler, Stat of California N. David Smith, State of North Carolina

Joseph Swanson, State of Alaska

238
REPORT OF STATE LABORATORY METROLOGY WORKSHOPS

Henry V. Oppermann

National Bureau of Standards

The workshop sessions were held on Monday, July 15 and on Wednesday, July

17. A tour of the Maryland Motor Fuel Testing Laboratory was conducted

on Tuesday, July 16. The workshop subjects included quality assurance for the laboratory, the

calibration of the U.S. prototype kilograms, and the concerns of the

petroleum industry regarding the accuracy and testing of loading rack

meters. The wide range of interest in these subjects was reflected by the

large attendance of industry and government officials other than State

metrologists.

The tour of the Maryland Motor Fuel Testing Laboratory provided an

opportunity for both State weights and measures directors and metrologists

to see the equipment necessary to operate a large scale petroleum testing

laboratory. Mr. Kent Nicodemus and Mr. Harwood 0wings, Jr., (retired) of the Maryland laboratory provided informative explanations of their operation

and fielded many questions regarding the regulation and testing of petroleum

quality. Dr. John K. Taylor, NBS Center for Analytical Chemistry, gave a comprehensive and educational lecture on the need for and benefits of

quality assurance in the laboratory. He discussed the requirements for quality assurance programs, the components of the programs, and methods of auditing the measurement systems. The points covered by Dr. Taylor are

applicable to all types of laboratories. Dr. Richard Davis, NBS Length and Mass Division, Center for Basic

Standards, reported on his work of calibrating the U.S. prototype kilograms

to the international kilogram. The preparation, test procedures, and

problems involved with this critical state-of-the-art measurement were of great interest to the metrologists. Many of the factors that are negligible

at the State laboratories are major concerns in the calibration of national

standards. Dr. Davis answered many questions from metrologists regarding mass calibration and related subjects. Mr. Robert Harrington, Manager, Safety and Security Department, Marathon

Petroleum Company, discussed the industry concerns regarding the testing of loading rack meters. His slides showed the great variety of loading rack

meter installations and the equipment used to test the meters. He

emphasized the importance of uniformity in test procedures and equipment

to obtaining consistent test results independent of the test agency. He

expressed the willingness of the petroleum industry to work with weights and measures to establish this uniformity.

The workshops closed with reports on the activities of each regional

metrology group and an open discussion of the stability of large weights and

the results of the measurement control program on glass flasks.

239
REGISTRATION LIST

70TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

JULY 14 - 19, 1985

J. W. MARRIOTT HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Abercrombie , S. S. Director, Georgia Department

of Agriculture

Agri. Bldg. , Capital Square

Atlanta, GA 30334

404/656-3605

Adams, Peggy H. Chief Sealer, Bucks County

Consumer Protection/

Weights and Measures Broad & Union Sts. Doylestown, PA 18901 215/348-7442

Akey, James H. State Metrologist

Weights and Measures Lab

2016 W. 37th St., P.O. Box 5516

Topeka, KS 66605

913/267-0278

Allen, Gilbert R. Sealer, City of Spokane

West 808 Spokane Falls Blvd.

Sponkane, WA 99201

Ambler, Ernest

Director, National

Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-241

1

Andersen, Ross J. Metrologist

Bureau of Weights and Measures

1220 Washington Avenue, Bldg. 7A Albany, NY 12235

518/453-6331

Andrews, Sydney D. Director, Division of Standards

FL Dept. of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

3125 Conner Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32301

904/488-0645

Appell, Kenneth C. Director, Quality Assurance

Colgate Palmolive Co. 300 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022

212/310-2022

Ball , Wayne

Assistant Chief

Bureau of Weights & Measures Florida Dept. of Agriculture

and Consumer Service

3125 Conner Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32301 904/488-9140

Barkley, Karen L. Secretary

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A61 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Bartfai, John J. Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures

1220 Washington Ave., Bldg. 7A Albany, NY 12235

518/435-6330

Belliveau, Robert E. Procter & Gamble Company

5299 Spring Grove Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45217

513/627-5203

Belmont, Anthony F. Town of Greenwich

101 Field Point Rd. Greenwich, CT 06836

203/622-8068

Belue, F. Michael

Mechanical Engineering Dept.

Southwest Pump Company

P.O. Drawer 280

Bonham, TX 75418

214/583-3134

240
Bird, James R. Box 194, Bella Bridge Rd., RD #1 Medford, NJ 08055

609/267-5520

Bland, Ronald

Deputy Inspector

Weights and Measures

City County Bldg. , Rm. G-6

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Bloser, Barrie L. Chief Engineer

Brooks Instrument Division

Highway 301 North, Box 450

Statesboro, GA 30458

912/764-5471

Blumenthal, Joel

Micro Motion Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301 303/530-8400

Bond, Margaret B. Inspector, District of Columbia

Weights and Measaures

1110 U St. , SE Washington, DC 20020

202/767-7923

Bookman, Robert S. Director, Adjudication Division

N.Y.C. Dept. of Consumer Affairs

80 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10011 212/566-5026

Bowles , William T

.

Director of Engineering

Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mng. Co. 1720 S. Bellaire St. Denver, CO 80222

303/759-6771

Bradshaw, Harold D. Weights and Measures Inspector

Department of Weights and Measures

City County Building, Room 314

Jeffersonville, IN 47130

812/256-2905

Bratle, E. A. NCR Corporation

1700 South Patterson Blvd.

Dayton, OH 45479

513/445-1306

Braun , William H

.

Packaging Section Head

Proctor and Gamble

6100 Center Hill Road

Cincinnati, OH 45014

513/659-5233

Brickenkamp, Carroll S. Manager, Res. & Develop.

Office of Weights and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Brink, Trafford F. Director, Weights and

Retail Inspec. VT Dept. of Agriculture

116 State St. Montpelier, VT 05602

802/828-2436

Brooks, Douglas G. President, LODEC

20215 Cedar Valley Road

Lynnwood, WA 98036

206/775-6471

Bruce, Bob C. Chief, Weights and Measures

Consumer and Corporate Affairs

Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA

61 3/ 990-8606

241
Brugh, Frank L. Administrator, Weights and

Measures

City County Building, Room G-6

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Brumbaugh, Robert T. President, Systems Assoc. Inc. 205 Peterson Rd.

Libertyville, IL 60048

312/367-6650

Brydon, Dawn M. Director of Public Affairs

International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers

Milk Industry Foundation

888 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006

202/296-4250

Burger, Gerald R. Fossil Fuels Specialist

Consumers Power Co. 1945 W. Parnall Rd.

Jackson, MI 49201

517/788-2387

Burk, Stuart C. Retired Director, Weights

and Measures

Solano County

70 Heliotrope

Vallejo, CA 94590

707/642-7849

Burke, John M. Inspector, District of Columbia

Weights and Measures

1110 U St . , SE

Washington, DC 20020

202/767-7923

Butcher, Kenneth S. Weights and Measures

Maryland Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Butterbaugh, William H. Assistant Vice President Tech. Serv. National LP-Gas Association

1301 West 22nd Street

Oak Brook, IL 60521

Cain, M. W. P.O. Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2477

Campbell, Michael P. Product Manager

Ohaus Scale Co.

29 Hanover Rd.

Florham Park, NJ 07932

201/377-9000

Capino, Wanda

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A603

Gait her sburg, MD 20899

301/921-3751

Carroll, Charles H. Assistant Director of Standards

MA Division of Standards

McCormick Bldg., Room 115 One Ashburton Place

Boston, MA 02108

617/727-3480

Casanova, Max C. Manager, Field Service

Ramsey Engineering Company

1853 W. County Rd.

St. Paul, MN 55113

612/633-5150

242
Cervantes, David

Project Engineer

Electroscale Corp.

P.O. Box 1786

Santa Rosa, CA 95402

707/584-9720

Chohamin, John M. Superintendent, Middlesex County

Dept. of Weights and Measures

841 Georges Rd. North Brunswick, NJ 08902

201/745-3297

Christie, Samuel H. Jr. Retired State Superintendent

Weights and Measures

123 Hillcrest Rd. Warren Township, NJ 07060

201/647-3267

Clark, Robert E. Assistant Director

ME Dept. of Agriculture

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

207/289-3841

Claussen, Richard H. Director, Porter County Weights

and Measures, Room 105

1401N Calumet, Courthouse Annex

Valparaiso, IN 46383

219/464-8661 X214

Clegg, LaVar

14030 Bolsa Lane Cerritos, CA 90701

71 4/739-1991

Clem, Fred P. Consumer Affairs Inspector

Office of Weights & Measures

50 W. Gay St. , Rm. 605 Columbus, OH 43215

614/222-7397

Coile, Martin T. Director of Weights and Measures

GA Dept. of Agriculture

Atlanta Farmers Market

Forest Park, GA 30050

404/ 363-7611

Colbrook, Sidney A. W&M Program Supervisor

IL Dept. of Agriculture

801 E. Sangamon Ave. Springfield, IL 62706

217/782-3817

Collette, Robert L. Assoc. Dir. Science & Tech.

National Fisheries Inst. 2000 M St., NW, Suite 580

Washington, DC 20036

202/ 296-5171

Conrad, Carl P. Chief, Supervisor

State of New Jersey

187 W. Hanover St. Trenton, NJ 08625

609/292-4615

Cook, Charles F. Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. P.O. Box 7188

Madison, WI 53707

608/241-6819

Coyne, Mark P. City Sealer

City of Brockton

City Hall, Room B12

Brockton, MA 02401

617/580-1100 X158

Crocker, Clarence N. Manager, Technical Services

AMAX Coal Company

105 S. Meridian St., P.O. Box 967

Indianapolis, IN 46206

317/266-2824

243
Crust, Ronald R

.

Sealer of Weights and Measures Centre County

Box 574

Milesburg, PA 16853

814/355-5750

Cruz, Antonio S. R. Director, Direccao Geral da Qualidade

R. Prof. Reinaldo Santos, Lote

1378

1500 Lisboa

PORTUGAL

786158

Daniels, A. Ray

Director, Industry Stds. & Rel.

NCR Corporation

1700 S. Patterson Blvd.

Dayton, OH 45479

513/433-8435

Daniels, Francis W. Administrator of Weights & Measures

Wayne County

50 N. Fifth St. Richmond, IN 47374

317/935-4813

Darsey, Stan J. Chief, Bureau of Weights & Measures

FL Dept. of Agric. & Consumer

Servs.

3125 Conner Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32301

904/ 488-9140

Davis, Clayton F. Director, Agric. Inspec. Div.

State House Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

207/289-3841

Davis, Delores D. Weights & Measures Spec. Ill Bureau of Weights and Measures

1220 Washington Ave., Bldg. 7A Albany, NY 12235

518/ 457-2491

Davis, Richard L. Administrator Regulatory Compl. James River-Dixie/Northern Inc. Neenah Tech Ctr 1915 Marathon

Neenah, WI 54956

414/729-8174

DeCheco, Thomas 0. Supervisor, Summit County Ohio

522 E. Cuyhoga Falls Ave. Akron, OH 44310

216/923-9546

DeGrange, Lacy H. Weights and Measures Section

MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Deisley, Mike L. Administrative Assistant

P.O. Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/474-3174

Delfino, Ezio F. Acting Assistant Director

Inspection Services

CA Dept. of Food & Agriculture

1220 N Street, Room A268

Sacramento, CA 95814

9! 6/445-4106

Dempster, C. J. 1404 - 303 Main St. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3C 3G8

204/949-2768

244
Denny, Charles J

.

Manager, Customer & Tech. Serv. William M. Wilsons Sons Inc.

8 & Valley Forge Rds.

Lansdale, PA 19446

215/855-4631

DeRyke, Tom

Mgr. Engr. and Prod. Develop.

Berkel Incorporated

1 Berkel Drive

Laporte, IN 46350

219/326-7000

Diggs, G. W. P.O. Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2477

Dillon, Ben

President, Masstron Scale Inc. 550 Schrock Rd. Columbus, OH 43229

614/436-3292

Donaldson, John L. Deputy Director, Office of

Product Standards Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Admin. A603

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3751

Eason, L. F. Standards Division

NC Dept. of Agriculture

1400 Western Blvd.

Raleigh, NC 27606

919/733-3246

Eble, Karen S. ARC0 Chemical Company

1500 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19101 215/557-2841

Edgerly, David E. Manager, Standards Management

Program

National Bureau of Standards

Admin. A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3287

Eldridge, William P. Director, Weights & Measures D MS Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 1609 Jackson, MS 39205

601/359-3025

Elengo, John J .

, Jr

.

Vice President Revere Corporation of America

P.O. Box 56, N. Colony Road

Wallingford, CT 06492

203/269-7701

Elliott, 0. Ray

Asst. Director Market Inds. OK Dept. of Agriculture

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405/521-3861 X302

Engle, Art Executive Director

International Society of

Weighing and Measurement

2506 Gross Point Road

Evanston, IL 60025

312/475-1008

Engler, Paul B. Agricultural Commissioner

Los Angeles County

3400 La Madera Ave.

El Monte, CA 91732

818/575-5451

245
English, David C. President, Measurement

Systems International

12622 Interurban Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98168

206/767-7433

Eska, Alexander L. Superintendent of Weights

and Measures

301 N. Wood Ave. Linden, NJ 07036

201/486-3800

Eskew, Herb

Chief Metrologist

TX Dept. of Agriculture

119 Cumberland Rd.

Austin, TX 78704

512/ 475-3720

Evans, Alfred C. Vice President Engineering

Veeder-Root Co. 70 Sargeant St. Hartford, CT 06102

203/527-7201

Feinland, Sy

Pitney Bowes, Inc. 380 Main Avenue

Norwalk, CT 06852

203/854-7007

Fonger, Robert L. Senior Technician

Bennett Pump Company

Broadway at Wood St. Muskegon, MI 49443

61 6/733-1 302

Forester, Charles E. Supervisor, TX Dept.

of Agriculture

P.O. Box 12847

Austin, TX 7871 1 512/ 475-6577

Fowle, Bill

Colgate Palmolive

P.O. Box 9 Jeffersonville, IN 47130

812/ 283-6611

Fraley, Ken Metrologist, Laboratory Div. Bureau of Standards

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405/521-3864 X370

Franks, George S. County Superintendent

Dept. of Weights & Measures

and Consumer Protection

788 E. Commerce St. Bridgeton, NJ 08 302

609/451-8000 X369

Freyer, Ronald

Manager, Quality Grocery

Pillsbury Company

Pillsbury Center - 2566

Minneapolis, MN 55402

612/330- 4034

Fullinwider, Patricia M. Chief, Weights and Measures

3039 W. Indian School

Phoenix, AZ 85017

602/255-5211

Furber, George R. Shell Oil Company

Two Shell Plaza

Louisiana & Walker Sts. Houston, TX 77002

713/241-4950

Garbig, George S. Industrial Specialist

USDA/FGIS

1400 Independence Ave., Rm. 0619-S

Washington, DC 20250

202/382-0262

246
Gardner, Charles A. Asst. Director - Weights & Measures

Suffolk County, NY County Center North Bldg. 340

Hauppauge, NY 11788

516/ 360-4621

Geiler, Thomas F. Sealer of Weights & Measures

Town of Barnstable

367 Main St. Hyannis, MA 02601

617/775-1 120 Gerber, Victor

Metrologist

WY Dept. of Agriculture

2219 Carey Ave. Cheyenne, NY 82002

307/777-7321

Gerdom, Walter F. Jr. Manager, Technical Services

Tokheim Corp. P.O. Box 360 Fort Wayne, IN 46801 219/423-2552

Gerk, Fred A. Director, Division of Standards

and Consumer Services

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1616

Giannina Joe Instrument Technician

GEAPS

Corpus Christi Public Elevator

P. 0. Box 2229

Corpus Christi, TX 78403

512/882-1956

Gilroy, Michael J. The Coca-Cola Company

P.O. Drawer 1734

Atlanta, GA 30301 404/ 676-3207

Gleason, M. P. Inspector, City of Richmond

501 N. 9th St., Rm. 127 Richmond, VA 23219

804/780-4208

Goedde, Mark, G. Director of Engr. Servs. National Grain & Feed Assoc.

725 15th St., NW

P.O. Box 28328

Washington, DC 20005

202/783-2024

Goodpaster, William V. Vice President

Cardinal Scale Co.

1 61 0 N. C St. Sacramento, CA 95814

916/441-0178

Greene, Charles H. Director, General Services

NM Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3189 Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-5340

Greiner, Leslie M. Director, Division of Weights

and Measures

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, M0 65102

816/248-3892

Grenier, Michael F. Metrologist

Agriculture State of NH

105 Loudon Rd. Prescott Park Bldg. #1

Concord, NH 03301

603/271-3700

247
Griffin, T. Scott

Manager, Consumer Products Res. U.S. Borax Research Corp.

412 Crescent Way- Anaheim, CA 92667

214/774- 2670

Grimes, Terry L. Secretary

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Gruber, Martin R. Jr. Director of Scale Testing

Southern Weighing & Inspec. Bur.

151 Ellis St. , NE #306

Atlanta, GA 30303

404/659-6266 X266

Guensler, Darrell A. Acting Assistant Director

Division of Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Rd.

Sacramento, CA 95826

916/ 366-5119

Hadyka, Paul

Industrial Specialist

USDA/FGIS

1400 Independence Ave., SW, Rm. 0623

Washington, DC 20250

202/ 382-0262

Haker, Khalil D. J. P. Engineering

BLH Electronics

75 Shawmud Industrial Park

Canton, MA 02021

617/821-2000

Halverson, John C. Deputy Director, Standardization

USDA/Federal Grain Inspec. Serv.

Bldg. 221, Richards-Gebaur AFB

Grandview, M0 64030

816/348-2511

Hanish, Edwin M. Inspector, LaPorte County

IN Weights and Measures

2700 Franklin St. Michigan City, IN 46360

219/874-7197

Hankel, Melvin C. Chief Design Engineer

Liquid Controls Corp.

Wacker Park

North Chicago, IL 60064

312/ 689-2400

Hare, George C. Badger Meter Inc. P.O. Box 23099

Milwaukee, WI 53223

414/ 355-0400

Harrington, Robert J. Manager, Safety Security

Marketing Division

Marathon Petroleum Co. 539 S. Main St. Findlay, OH 45840

419/422-2121 X2022

Hartley, David B. Sr. Asst. Mgr., Quality Assurance

Nestle Foods Corporation

100 Bloomingdale Rd.

White Plains, NY 10605

914/682-6857

Hasko, Stephen

Engineer

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

248
Hausherr, Walter

Director, Management Servs. Mettler Instrument Corp. Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

Hayes, Ron Petroleum Lab Supervisor

M0 Dept. of Agriculturew

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, M0 65102

31 4/751-2922

Heffernan, Ann P. Conference Coordinator

Office of Weights and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3677

Heffron, Edward C. Director, Food Division

MI Dept. of Agriculture

Ottawa Bldg. N., 4th Floor

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

517/37 3- 1 060

Helmick, Raymond H. Manager, Weighing Systems

Peabody Coal Co. Arizona Div.

1638 E . Cinnabar Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85020

602/943-3837 Herman , Marilyn J

.

President Herman and Associates

2300 M St . , NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20037

202/775-1630

Hermanson, John R. Supervisor, Weights & Measures

City of Dallas, Texas

1500 W. Mockingbird

Room A- 19 Dallas, TX 75035

21 4/670-641 4 Hershbein, Arthur

Director, Consumer Protection Div.

Dade County Florida

44 W. Flagler St., Suite 2303

Miami, FL 33130

305/579-4222

Herstein, Jeffrey N. General Sales Manager

Poly-Tech

1401 W. 94th St. Minneapolis, MN 55431 612/884-7281

Hindsman , Sam F

.

Director, AR Bureau of Standards

4608 W. 61 st St. Little Rock, AR 72209

501/371-1736

Hine, D. J. Senior Measurement Consultant

Sohio Pipe Line Co. P.O. Box 6098-251 R0

Cleveland, OH 44115

216/348-3326

Hock, Lee

Field Services Coordinator

Standard Oil Co. 4850 E. 49th St. Cleveland, OH 44125

216/271-821 1 Hockmuth, Richard L. Mechanical Products Engr. Mgr. PMP Corporation

25 Security Dr. , P0B 422 Avon, CT 06001 203/677-9656

249
Hodsman, G. F.

8 Knighton Road

Sutton Cozdfield

West Midlands, England

4421-353-7693

Hoffman, Dawn M. Secretary

Standards Code and Information

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A629

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3272

Holloway, Lyman D. Chief, Bureau of Weights & Meas. 2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83702

208/334-2345

Hood, Robert B. Vice President, Engineering

LODEC

P .0 . Box D Lynwood, WA 98046-1300

206/775-6471

Hooker, Ron

Program Supervisor

Div. of Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, M0 65102

31 4/496-3607

Hoover, Brian

Micro Motion Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

303/530-8400

Hurley, Richard H. Manager, Regulation Compliance

and Product Division

Fairbanks Weighing Division

711 East St. Johnsbury Rd. St. Johnsbury, VT 05819

802/748-511

1

Hutchinson, Ronald

Inspector, Weights & Measures Div.

State Office Bldg/Cons. Prot. Hartford, CT 06 106 203/828-6239

James, David

905 Melody Lane Cape Girardeau, M0 63701

31 4/334-61 09 or 751/5638

James, W. Terry

Vice President Engineering

Cardinal Scale Mfg. Co. 203 E. Daugherty

Webb City, M0 64870

417/673" 4631 Jensen, Randy

Micro Motion Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 8030

1

303/530-8400

Johnson, Spencer A. Director, Government Relations

Paperboard Packaging Council

1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 411 Washington, DC 20005

202/189-4100

Jorowski, Gerry A. Program Officer

Consumer & Corporate Affrs.,

Canada

Place du Portage, Phase I 50 Victoria St. Hull, Quebec, K1A0C9, Canada

819/997-1 177 Kathmann, R.J.

Procter and Gamble Mfg. Co.

1601 West 7th St. Long Beach, CA 90813

213/432-6981

250
Katterheinr ich, Fred H. Manager, Agency/Design Policy

Product Development & Engineering

Hobart Corporation

South Ridge Avenue

Troy, OH 45374

513/332-2037

Keeley, Eugene

Supervisor, DE Weights & Meas. Drawer D Dover, DE 19903

302/736-4811

Kelly, Thomas W. State Superintendent

187 W. Hanover St. Trenton, NJ 08625

609/292-4615

King, Robert E. Inspector of Weights & Meas. Auditor Auglaize County

209 E. Pearl St. Wapakoneta, OH 45895

419/738-2364 or 738-2511

Kirby, Thomas E. Route 3, Box 65C Jackson, GA 30233

404/775-6387

Klevay, Tom

Director of Technical Affairs

Millers National Federation

600 Maryland Ave., Suite 305

Washington, DC 20024

202/ 484-2200

Kloos, Chip

Lab Manager, RD Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

1645 W. Valencia

Fullerton, CA 92634

714/ 680-1098

Koenig, Joan A. Manager, Special Projects

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Kosits, Frank A. Retired Inspector Cuyahoga Cnty.

17500 Daleview

Lakewood, OH 44107

608/266-5642

Kranker, Nelson

Senior Inspector

Dutchess County, New York

22 Market St. Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 914/471-6322

Kroll, Art Manager, Regulatory Affairs

GILBARCO

7300 W. Friendly Road

Greensboro, NC 27420

919/293-301

1

Kupper, Walter E. Engineering Manager

Mettler Instrument Corp. Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

LaBree, Ted R. Technical Director Reg. Affrs.

Riviana Foods Inc. Technical Center, Riviana Foods

1702 Taylor St. Houston, TX 77007

71 3/861-8221

Lacy, John

Chief, Scales & Weighing Br. USDA Packers & Stockyards

14th & Independence Aves. Washington, DC 20250

202/475-3209

251
Ladd, Anthony J. Consultant, A. J. Ladd Weighing

and Packaging Systems

255 N. Portage Path, Suite 213

Akron, OH 44303

216/836-4569

Land, Robert L. Inspector of the City of Anderson

Dept. of Weights and Measures

120 E 8th St. , P.O. Box 2100

Anderson, IN 46018

317/646-9839

LeCaire, Robert A. Director, Laboratory Services

Presto Products Inc. 670 W. Perkins St. Appleton, WI 54913

414/739-9471

Lee, Clyde E. Professor, Dept. of

Civil Engineering

ECJ 4.2 Univ. of Texas

Austin, TX 78712

512/471-4549

Leight, Walter G. Manager, Standards Code & Inf.

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A629

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3272

Lemme, Wolfgang

Manager, Technical Services

Mettler Instrument Corp.

Princeton-Hightstown Rd.

Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

Letey, Leo

Chief, Measurement Stds. Sec. Dept. of Agriculture

3125 Wyandot

Denver, CO 80211

303/866-2845

Li, Jia-hua

Deputy Director of Information

& Publication Service

State Bureau of Metrology

Peoples Republic of China

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Lloyd, Raymond J. Executive Director

Scale Manufacturers Association

152 Rollins Ave., Suite 208

Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Lockmiller, Richard N. Manager, Government Relations

A. E. Staley Mfg. Co. P.O. Box 151 Decatur, IL 62525

217/421-3065

Lodge, Harvey M. President, Dunbar Mfg. Inc.

307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

419/244-3021

Lowery, Lawrence L. General Scale Inspector

Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

8 N. Jefferson St. Roanoke, VA 24042

703/981-3022

Loyd, F. Joe Jr. Supervisor, Scales & Weighing

Seaboard System Railroad

500 Water St., Room 1010

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904/731-2849

Lyles, J. F. P.O. Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2477

252
Lynch, Donald L. Standard Administrator

City of Kansas City, Kansas

701 North 7th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 913/573-5085

MacDonald, John F. Vice President of Engineering

Streeter Richardson

680 Van Houten Avenue

Clifton, NJ 07015

201/471 "3400

Malone, Steven A. Director, Weights & Measures

P. 0. Box 3^757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/ 471 -4292

Manis, John M. Industrial Specialist

USDA/FGIS, Room 0628

1400 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20250

202/382-0276

Mann, John M. Senior Counsel

U.S. Borax

3075 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010

213/381-5311 X5459

Marino, Patrick

Technical Service Manager

New Brunswick Intl. Inc.

5 Greek lane

Edison, NJ 08817

201/287-2288

Massey, Vernon L. Sealer, Shelby County Government

814 Jefferson

Memphis, TN 38105

901/528-3456

Mattimoe, George E. Administrator, Division of Measurement Standards

Department of Agriculture

725 Halo Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

808/548-7152

Maxwell, Earl E. Chief, Weights and Measures District of Columbia

1110 U St. , SE Washington, DC 20020

202/1767-7923

McCutcheon, John W. Deputy Administrator

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

14th St. & Independence Ave. Washington, DC 20250

202/447-3521

McGuire, Stephen E. Metrologist, IL Dept.

of Agriculture

801 E. Sangamon

Springfield, IL 62706

217/785-8480

McKenzie, Carol K. Secretary

Standards Management Program

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3287

McLeod, Robert A. Acting Deputy Director

Audits & Scales

Weighing Division

Canadian Grain Commission

800 - 303 Main St. Winnipeg, Manitoba

Canada R3C3G8

204/949-2798

253
McPherson, John R. Senior Staff Engineer

Exxon Co. USA

P.O. Box 4388

Houston, TX 77210

713/874-5203

Melgaard, James

Director, Division of Fire

Safety and Regulation

118 West Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501

605/ 773" 431

1

Mercer, Patrick J. MI Dept. of Agriculture

244 Marshall St. Allegan, MI 49010

61 6/673-8812

Merkh, Walter J. Sensitive Measurement Inc. P.O. Box 72

Pemberton, NJ 08073

609/894-2755

Michell, Charles W. Jr. Senior Loss Control Representative

Shell Oil Company

TSP Room 1 1 40 Houston, TX 77001

713/241-0455

Moody, Andrew B. Jr. Supervising Inspector, Bur. of

Weights

and Measures, City of Richmond

501 N . Ninth St. , Rm. 127 Richmond, VA 23219

804/780- 4208

Moore, Charles W. County Inspector, Weights and

Measures of Madison

Madison County Govt. Center

Anderson, IN 46011 317/646-9839

Moreillon, James M. Inspec tor New Albany - Floyd Co. 1203 Westwood Lane New Albany, IN 47150

812/944-0470

Morrow, Thomas L.

R and D Supervisor

TEC America Inc. 19250 Van Ness Ave. Torrance, CA 90501

213/320-8900

Mossberg, Wesley R. 1637 East Palm Dr. Covina, CA 91724

818/332-9920

Mott, William G. Computer Clerk

Office of Weights and Mesaures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3677

Murphy, Emmett

Chief, Philadelphia Weights

and Measures, One Reading Ctr. 11th & Market St., Suite 600

Philadelphia, PA 19107

215/592-6081

Murray, Francis, J., Jr. Inspector, District of Columbia

Weights and Measures

1110 U St ., SE Washington, DC 20020

202/767-7923

Murray, L. E. Chief Engineer Dresser Industries Inc.

124 W. College Ave., P.O. Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21801 301/546-6690

254
Musser, R. E. P.O. Box 1 163

Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2477

Nagele, Frank

Weights & Measures Specialist

MI Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

517/373-1060

Nagy , Joseph V

.

City Sealer, City of South Bend

703 W. Sample St. South Bend, IN 46621 219/284-9273

Nelson, Allan M. Chief, Weights and Measures

Dept. of Consumer Protection

1 65 Capitol Ave. , Rm. G1

7

Hartford, CT 06106

203/566-5230

Nelson, Robert L. Manager, Phys. Testing-Baking Sec. General Mills Inc. 9000 Plymouth Ave., North

Minneapolis, MN 55427

612/540- 2727 Nichols, Patrick E. Sealer, Dept. of Weights & Meas.

333 5th St. Oakland, CA 94607

415/874- 6736

O'Connor, James M. Supervisor, Weights & Measures Henry A. Wallace Bldg. Des Moines , IA 5031 9 515/281-571

6

Oday, David M. Product Manager

Mech. Recycling Dev. Golden Recycle Company

3000 Youngfield St., Suite 230

Lakewood, CO 80215

303/277-5771

Olsson, Philip C. Olsson and Frank, PC 1029 Vermont Ave. , NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/789-1 21

2

O'Neill, John L. 2016 West 37th, P.O. Box 5516

Topeka, KS 66605

91 3/267-4641

Oppermann, Henry V. General Physical Scientist

Office of Weights and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A61 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Ovian, Charles K. Agri-Mark Inc.

9 Mona Vista Ave. Rutland, VT 05701 802/775-1571

Parent, Claude R. Director, National Accounts

Gilbarco, Inc.

7 Eastwood Dr. Orinda, CA 94563

415/376-5697

Paugstat , John F

.

Engineer, NCR

Cambridge, OH 43725

61 4/439-0571

255
Pearson, Bryant

Sealer of Weights & Measures

City of New Britain CT

27 W. Main St. , City Hall

New Britain, CT 06051

203/ 589" 341

7

Peeples, James G. Director, Legislative and

Regulatory Affairs

Information Resources, Inc.

499 S. Capitol St., Suite 406

Washington, DC 20003

202/554-0614

Perez Jose B

.

Asst. Secy., Bureau of Enforcement

Dept. of Consumer Affairs

P.O. Box 41059, Minillas Sta. Santurce, Puerto Rico 00940

809/721-1910

Perino, Peter R. Transducers Inc.

1 4030 Bolsa Lane Cerritos, CA 90701

714/739-1991

Perry, W. H. President, Cardinal Scale

P.O. Box 151 Webb City, M0 64870

417/673" 4631 Petersen, Robert J. Program Manager

American Natl. Metric Council

1010 Vermont Ave. , NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/628-5757

Peterson, Paul L. Scales & Weighing Specialist

USDA/Packers & Stockyards Admin.

Room 3414, South Building

Washington, DC 20250

202/447-3140

Pforr, Richard R. Chief, Equipment Branch

USDA/FGIS

1400 Independence Ave. Washington, DC 20250

202/382-1746

Pic ton, Thomas

Scale Cupervisor

Conrail

Philadelphia, PA 19104

215/977-1617

Pirlot, Allen

Deputy Inspector

Weights and Measures

City County Bldg., Rm. G-6

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Pittman, Cathryn F. Weights & Measures Technologist

Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 40627 Melrose Sta. Nashville, TN 37204

615/360-00159

Pragar, Thomas

Chief of Weights and Measures

City of Cincinnati Ohio

3845 Wm. P. Dooley Bypass

Cincinnati, OH 45223

513/ 352-3135

Probst, Robert W. Supervisor, Weights & Measures

WI Dept. of Agriculture Trade

Consumer Protection

801 W. Badger Rd., Box 8911 Madison, WI 53708

608/266-7241

Pugh, John V. Director, Metrology Laboratory

SC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 11280

Columbia, SC 29211

803/758-7478

256
Pye, Cassandra W. State Issues Coordinator

Food Marketing Institute

1750 K St. , NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006

202/452-8444

Rabb, John B

.

Laboratory Supervisor

Weights and Measures Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 3336

Montgomery, AL 36193

205/832-6766

Reenstra, Arthur L. Director of Engineering

Franklin Elec. Co. Pack/Whg

P.O. Box 666

Levittown, PA 19058

215/925-2000

Reinfried, Robert A. Technical Assistant

Scale Manufacturers Association

152 Rollins Ave. Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Rhoads, Austin T. Northeast Ice Cream Assoc.

9811 Mallard Dr., Suite 213

Laurel, MD 20708

301/953-9117

Richardson, Ervin G. Manager, Government Standards

Reynolds Metals Company

6601 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23261 804/281-2276

Riepma, Siert F. President, National Assoc. of

Margarine Manufacturers

1625 I St., NW #10244

Washington, DC 20006

202/785-3232

Robinson, Cordell L. Office of Weights and Measures

50 West Gay St., Room 605

Columbus, OH 43215

61 4/222-7397

Robinson, John J. Assistant Vice President

Association of American RR 1920 L St. , NW Washington, DC 20036

202/835-9253

Roemke, Stu

The Kroger Company

2 Campbell Dr. Highland Heights, KY 41076

607/572-2223

Rogers, Alan F. Manager, Quality Assurance

Union Carbide Corp.

88 Long Hill St. East Hartford, CT 06108

203/728- 6086

Rogers, J. A. P.O . Box 1 163 Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2477

Romano, Ed

Sealer, Department of

Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 351 Willows, CA 95988

916/934-4651

Rosenthal, Stuart A. Consumer Advocate

NYC Dept. of Consumer Affairs

80 Lafayette St. New York, NY 10013

212/566-3042

257
Rosf elder, TerrySun Refining & Marketing

1801 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103

215/977-6502

Ross, Norman M. Chief, Weights & Measures Div.

Public Safety Dept. Wts. & Meas. Douglas Civic Ctr. 1819 Farham

Omaha, NE 68183

402/444-5368

Rothleder, Joseph

Metrologist

Div. of Measurement Stds.

8500 Fruitridge Rd. Sacramento, CA 95826

916/366-5119

Rousey, Norman T. Inspector, Weights & Measures

1110 U St. , SE

Washington, DC 20020

202/767-7923

Sadler, J. W. P.O. Box 1163

Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2477

Santos, Christi L. Administrative Assistant

TX Dept. of Agriculture W&M

P.O. Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711

512/463-7601

Santos, Dave J. Director, Dept. of Revenue

and Taxation

Government of Guam

855 W. Marine Dr. Agana, Guam 96910

671/477-1040

Schaible, Michael J. Special Representative

Marathon Oil Co. 539 S. Main St. Findlay, OH 45840

419/422-2121

Scheurer, William A. Retired

2146 Elgin Rd. Columbus, OH 43221 614/488-331 2 Scott, Tom

Chief, Measurement Section

Standards Division

NC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 26056

Raleigh, NC 2761 1 919/733-3313

Seitz, Richard L. Manager, Mech. Product Engineer

Veeder Root Co. 28 Sargeant St. Hartford, CT 06102

203/527-7201

Sevier , William R

.

Weights & Measures Inspector

800 South Price

Princeton, IN 47670

812/795-2532

Shipman, Daryl C. Product Engineer

Neptune Measurement Co. Emerald Rd. , P.O. Box 792

Greenwood, SC 29646

803/223-1212

Shockley, M. Richard

Program Manager

MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401 301/841-5790

258
Silvestro, Joseph

Sup er intendent

Glou. Co. WTs. & Meas. Dept.

49 Wood St., County Bldg.

Woodbury, NJ 08096

609/853-3358

Simila, Kendrick J, Administrator, OR Weights

and Measures Division

635 Capitol St. , NE

Salem, OR 97310

503/378-3792

Skalkowski, Stanley

Deputy Director

Consumer Protection Div.

44 W. Flagler St. Miami, FL 33183

305/579-4222

Skluzacek, Edward P. Director, Weights & Measures Div.

2277 Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113

612/341-7000 X7205

Slamon, William J

.

Asst. Division Chief

State of Connecticut

165 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106

203/566-5230

Smith, Charles T. Director, Consumer Servs. Div.

SC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 1 1280

Columbia, SC 29211 803/758-7478

Smith, N. David

Director, Standards Division

NC Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 26056

Raleigh, NC 27611

919/733-331 3

Smith, Richard N. Technical Coordinator

Office of Weights and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3677

Southall, B. W. P.O . Box 1 163 Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2477

Spencer , James H

.

Director, Consumer Protection

MS Dept. of Agri. & Commerce

P.O. Box 1609 Jackson, MS 39205

601/366-8747

Stabler, Thomas M. Manager, Weights & Measures Toledo Scale

P.O. Box 658 Worthington, OH 43085

61 4/438-4548

Staffeldt, George W. City Sealer

Weights and Measures

City Hall

Mishawaka, IN 46544

219/258-1622

Stagg, Don E. Director, Weights & Measures Div. P.O. Box 3336

Montgomery, AL 36193

205/261-2613

Stagg, Philip A. Director, Weights & Measures

LA Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 44456 Baton Rouge, LA 70804

504/925-37880

259
Stephens, Edison J. Deputy Commissioner

UT Dept. of Agriculture

350 N . Redwood Road

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

801/533-^109

Stephenson, Michael K. Food Specialist

MI Dept. of Agriculture

244 Marshall St. Allegan, MI 49010

616/673-8812

Straub, Louis E. Program Manager

Weights and Measures Section

MD Department of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Sullivan, William C. Supervisor, Weights and Measures

Dept. Licenses & Consumer Affrs.

102 Municipal Bldg.

Seattle, WA 98104

206/625-2715

Swanson, Joseph L. Director, AK Dept. of Commerce

and Economic Development

P.O. Box 1 11686

Anchorage, AK 99511

907/345-7750

Tamblingson, F. Anderson Peat - Organic Compost

2013 S. Anthony Blvd.

Ft. Wayne, IN 46803

219/432-8902

Tandy, Charles D. Jr. Chief, Weights and Measures

Dept. of Commerce & Econ. Dev.

P.O . Box 1 11686

Anchorage, AK 9951 1 907/345-7846

Taubert, Carl A. Director, QA Technical Servs. Pillsbury Co. - MS 9441

31 1 Second St .

, SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414

612/330-4477

Tholen, Albert D. Chief, Office of Weights

and Measures National Bureau of Standards

Administration A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Thomas, Fred A. Director, PA Bureau of

Weights and Measures

2301 N . Cameron St. Harrisburg, PA 17110

717/787-9089

Thompson, Earl A. Marketing Department

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L St ., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/682-8230

Thompson, Merrill S. Vice President & Partner

Chadwell and Kayser

P.O. Box 8500

Bridgeton, IN 47836

312/454-9636

Thompson, Richard L. Chief of Weights and Measures

MD Dept. of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401 301/841-5790

260
Thuner, Kathleen A. Agric. Coram. Sealer

Weights and Measures

County of San Diego

5555 Overland Ave., Bldg. 3 San Diego, CA 92123

71 V565-5781

Tkachuk, W. K. Shell Oil Company

TSP Room 1 1 42 777 Walker St., P.O. Box 2099

Houston, TX 77001

713/241-0502

Tommasi, Guy

Sealer of Weights and Mesures

City of Middletown

City Hall

Middletown, CT 06457

203/344-3492 X492

Tonini, Daryl E. Technical Director

Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

152 Rollins Ave. Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Topalis, Tom

Quality Assurance Compliance

Quaker Oats Company

617 W. Main St. Barrington, IL 60010

312/381-1980

Truex, James C. Weights & Measures Inspec. Mgr. OH Dept. of Agriculture

8995 E . Main St. Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

61 4/866-6361

Tucker, R. L. Tokheim Corporation

P.O. Box 360

1602 Wabash Ave. Fort Wayne, IN 46801 219/423-2552

Ulicny, Tom A. Scale Operations Manager

GSE Inc. 23640 Research Drive

Farmington Hills, MI 48024

313/476-7875

Vadelund, Eric A. Standards Specialist

Standards Management Program

National Bureau of Standards

Admin. A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3287

Vanhuss, Ray E . Jr

.

Director, Government Relations

Gerber Products Co. 445 State Street

Fremont, MI 49412

616/928-2225

Van Inwagen, Charles L. Staff Engineer

Shell Oil Company

1100 Milam, P.O. Box 3105

Houston, TX 77001

71 3/241 -1 778

Vroom, William R

.

Deputy Superintendent

Dept. of Weights & Measures

P.O. Box 3000

Somerville, NJ 08876

201/231-7125

Walker, Robert W. Director, Weights & Measures Div.

1330 W. Michigan St. Indianapolis, IN 46206

31 7/1633-0350

Wall, Donald R. Greater NY Metro Foods

275 Madison Ave. New York, NY 1001

6

212/ 689-8600

261
Walters, James K. Director, Measurement

API

1 1 20 L St . , NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/ 682-8145

Warnlof, Otto K. Manager, Technical Services

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A61

7

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2401

Warshaw, Stanley I. Director, Office of Product

Standards Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A603

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3751

Watson, David J. Consumer Products Supervisor

City of Ft. Worth, Texas

1800 University Dr., Rm. 208

Ft. Worth, TX 76107

817/ 870-7570

Weary, Sheron E. Director of Technology & Data Flexible Packaging Assoc. 1090 Vermont Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/842-3880

Weber, Richard H. Metrology Lab

3M Co. , Bldg. 544-1-02

St. Paul, MN 55144

612/733-2674

Weick, Donald J. City Sealer

City Attorney's Office

215 E. 7th St., Rm. 353

Topeka, KS 66603

91 3/295-3883

Wells, Raymond R. President, Sensitive Measurement

Inc

.

P.O. Box 72

Pemberton, NJ 08073

609/894-2292

Whipple, Richard L. Regulatory Engineer

Gilbarco, Inc.

3511 W. Market St., P0B 22087

Greensboro, NC 27420

919/292-3011

Williams, Robert G. Assistant Director

Div. of Marketing

P.O. Box 40627/Melrose Sta. Nashville, TN 37204

615/360-0160

Wilson, George D. Director, Technical Services

American Meat Institute

P.O. Box 3556

Washington, DC 20007

202/841-2400

Wise, Donald

Deputy Inspector

Weights and Measures

City County Bldg., Rm. G-6

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317/236-4272

Wittenberger , Robert

Metrologist

MO Dept. of Agriculture

P.O. Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

31 4/751-3440

Zielnicki, Walter J. Scale & Weight Coordinator

Amstar Corp.

1251 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10010

212/489-9000

tt U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE! 1985-491-070/20290

262
NBS-114A rev. 2-sci U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS/SP-704

2. Performing Organ. Report No 3. Publication Date November 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Report of the 70th National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1985

5. AUTHOR(S) Albert D. Tholen, Louis E. Barbrow, Ann P. Heffernan, Editors

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE GAITHERSBURG , KD 208997. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP) Same as no. 6

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) These are the proceedings of the 70th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, held in Washington, D. C. , July 14 to July, 19, 1985, and attended by State, county, and

city weights and measures officials, and representatives of the Federal Government,

business, industry, and consumer organizations. Reports by the several standing

and annual committees of the Conference comprise the major portion of the publication. Included also are papers presented by Conference officials and others. Major issues discussed at the Conference included a new Scales Code to be effective January 1, 1986, method of sale of commodities, labeling of gasoline-alcohol blends, national

type evaluation, and development of training materials.

• alphabetical order: capitalize only proper names; and separate, key words by semicolons) nations and tolerances; training? type evaluation, 12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries Legal metrology; specific

uniform laws and regulations; weights and measures.

13. AVAILABILITY

fifl Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. r~l Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF PRINTED PAGES

'63

15. Pr

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80

Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research ana development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad

range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying

standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Bureau's

technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and

technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide pro- gram coordinated by NBS under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published quarterly for NBS by

the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and perfor- mance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety

characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a

subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject

area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies. Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized re- quirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private

sector standardizing organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background

knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FTPS PUB>—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented

by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations). NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by NBS

for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID NBS

PERMIT No. G195